Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

queue1102 t1_j06y5yd wrote

Why do they even bother with trials and juries then? Her actions just invalidated the work of at least 187 jurors who had to make the hard decision to convict a criminal for some heinous crime. She may as well make herself queen of Oregon.

−9

militaryCoo t1_j072bi6 wrote

This is dumb. They're not releasing them, they're just not killing them

9

queue1102 t1_j07tpdh wrote

You know what, you convinced me, no one deserves to die. Not the Hitler's, the Putin's the Goebbels, the Pol Pots, etc. of the world. It's not like Hitler ever did any harm from prison or anything right? Not like that's where Mein Kampf was written or anything...

−5

Slavic_Dusa OP t1_j073iq1 wrote

Jurors don't get to decide what the punishment is. That is what judges do. Jurors' job is to say if they think a person committed a crime or not.

5

FNboy t1_j088phx wrote

This is not true. The criminal trial is is two phases - the first determines guilt or innocence based on the charged crimes. The second phase is punishment, and a unanimous verdict must be reached to commit someone to death.

2

queue1102 t1_j07s234 wrote

According to justice.gov, you are incorrect. https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/sentencing See also, 18 U.S.C. 3593-94. Additionally, in Oregon, it requires unanimous juror consent to issue the death penalty, so 204 citizens were wronged.

0

GoPointers t1_j09q8rr wrote

Oregon used to allow for nonunanimous juries in felony trials but that just recently changed. I'm not sure if that included capital punishment.

1