barrinmw t1_j2907y0 wrote

He made a deal with separatist forces to fund them, if that is illegal, he will have his day in court. Are you going to claim that Zelensky is despotic because he acquiesced to the courts letting the former president go on his own recognizance?

Next you are going to tell me that if the DOJ goes after Trump, that is the US locking up political rivals too.


barrinmw t1_isbuiqi wrote

My example was showing you can't just reverse the situation and take logical conclusions from it.

And no, I wasn't saying that jurors should be allowed to dictate the sentence even if it's not allowed by the law because literally no law only has the death penalty as the consequence of breaking it. A jury has to choose between applying the death penalty in cases that allow it or not. My point is that potential jurors who wouldn't approve of the death penalty should still be allowed to sit on trials where the death penalty is in play.


barrinmw t1_isbtsxi wrote

Of course not and that isn't a good argument.

If I say that we should never put anyone to death, you don't get to defeat that argument by saying it would be just as silly to say we should put everyone to death. Not everything can just have the roles reversed and be the same logically.


barrinmw t1_isb21wk wrote

Part of that article is about how in death penalty cases, they select for people who are fine with the death penalty. That seems fucked up to me because then you aren't being judged by your peers, but by the people who are okay with the government killing you.

If 40% of the population is against the death penalty (made up number) then you should have approximately 40% members of murder juries made up of people who are against the death penalty. If you can't convince 12 average americans that it is okay to kill this person, then it shouldn't happen.