dagblog - Comments for "Well, A Blog I'll Just Call Crime and Punishment"

I think this is a legitimate

HSG — Wed, 20 May 2015 23:17:43 +0000

In reply to What i am saying is that it

I think this is a legitimate point but I doubt there's much risk of being prosecuted for perjury if you tell the court that you would consider imposing the death penalty, even if you don't think you would, and then you argue in jury deliberations that the facts don't justify execution in your view.

That is interesting.

Michael Maiello — Wed, 20 May 2015 18:27:19 +0000

In reply to Very good piece from the Cato

That is interesting.

Very good piece from the Cato

Verified Atheist — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:47:37 +0000

In reply to Jury nullification is

Very good piece from the Cato Institute (formerly known as the Charles Koch Foundation), which I admit surprises me. This is the best bit, IMO:

Numerous academic studies show that those who survive the death qualification process are not only biased towards death (instead of life imprisonment), but conviction. People who have no qualms about the death penalty just tend to favor the prosecution - whether the crime is shoplifting, drunk driving, or murder.

I am also anti-death penalty,

Verified Atheist — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:42:20 +0000

In reply to Do we really need more lying

I am also anti-death penalty, but to play devil's advocate, if we're talking about murderers, then wouldn't their peers be people willing to kill? (Yes, that's meant to be a lame excuse.)

I think that jury

Michael Maiello — Wed, 20 May 2015 14:46:23 +0000

In reply to I think it would be helpful

I think that jury nullification would need to be used in the guilt phase of the trial because a guilty verdict would likely lead to the DP.

Hmmm... That's not how I would do it. In the Ronell Wilson case, where I was part of the selection pool, it would have been extremely difficult to nullify in the guilt phase. He shot a guy in the back of the head, on purpose. He just didn't know the guy was a cop. As with Tsarnaev, there's just so little doubt that a crime was committed that you wouldn't be able to make much of a stand against 11 jurors. The nullification would have to happen in the penalty phase.

If the court allowed death penalty opponents to serve openly, this would not be an issue. The question to me would be, "Does the severity of the crime in this instance, merit the death penalty in spite of your disagreement with it?" I would simply say, "No" and go on with my life. But since my opposition is being used as a basis for excluding me, I never get to answer that question. Any harm I could cause by playing the game to try to get a seat on a capital jury seems very minor to me.

Of course, it will never happen now. I am unlikely to be called for a second capital case and this post and discussion would, when mixed with the Google, likely lead to my dismissal from such a jury rather early in the process.

Indeed, this would really force me to put my money when my mouth is, were I to ever find myself on such a jury because an angry prosecutor could definitely point to this post as evidence of intentional perjury.

I sure do like to live dangerously!

What i am saying is that it

Peter — Wed, 20 May 2015 03:55:46 +0000

In reply to Peter's argument appears to

What i am saying is that it is unwise to recommend to anyone to commit perjury that could cause them to be imprisoned for a lengthy sentence even if it is for a worthy cause. That cause is not served by perjury or trying to rig the system and it will not stop the DP from being applied.

If someone wants to commit this crime on their own volition without prompting that is their decision and responsibility. If they are discovered, which is likely, they will pay the price and the DP will likely be applied anyway.

The DP in the US accounts for only a miniscule fraction of state sponsored killing by the US and no amount of lying will change that fact, I wish it could but all it would do is bring more people down to the level of our lying government.

The death penalty is a joke.

rmrd0000 — Wed, 20 May 2015 01:08:01 +0000

In reply to Peter's argument appears to

The death penalty is a joke. It will take years for the Boston Bomber to face death. With life imprisonment, the door closes and He stays locked up. He will be isolated for his own safety. He will be miserable. Case closed.

Peter's argument appears to

HSG — Wed, 20 May 2015 00:36:17 +0000

In reply to Jury nullification may be

Peter's argument appears to be that lying to prevent state-sponsored killing contravenes the law. To paraphrase Dickens, sometimes "the law is an ass".

I think it would be helpful

Peter — Wed, 20 May 2015 00:18:25 +0000

In reply to Jury nullification is

I think it would be helpful to have someone with a legal background explain the problems with these ideas for attacking the DP.

I think that jury nullification would need to be used in the guilt phase of the trial because a guilty verdict would likely lead to the DP. You may be willing to release a mass murderer back into society to make an emotional political point but i doubt you would be joined by many other citizens in your quest for mercy.

Our system is certainly biased, by money, and race based but neither of these facts was involved in the Boston Bombing trial. The defendant received the best defense a guilty person could hope for and he is as white as a person can be, he is a Caucasian.

Jury nullification is

rmrd0000 — Tue, 19 May 2015 22:40:28 +0000

In reply to Jury nullification may be

Jury nullification is justified even in death penalty cases. Especially in death penalty cases. The jury is to be composed of peers of the accused. By rejecting those with objections to the death penalty, the jury is stacked. Prosecutors winnow out people with objections to the death penalty including women and minorities. Both the latter groups have higher rates of objection to the death penalty. Should blacks freely participate in a biased judicial system that results in higher rates of death penalties handed out for those who are found guilty of killing white rather than black victims?

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-you-death-qualified

Why should the biased and race-based system go unchallenged.