ithriosa t1_isb50zm wrote
Reply to comment by barrinmw in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b
Naah. That is a political matter not a legal matter. They select people who are willing to make a choice asked on law, and current law states that the death penalty is legal and fine in their jurisdiction.
>If you can't convince 12 average americans
It is not about 12 random Americans. This is not a federal case. It is a state case. And it is not a matter of popular opinion, it is a matter of law. Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason, they need to be based on the law in question.
If you don't think the death penalty should be legal, then work for political change. However this is court and if the law states that death is an option, then so must the jurors. I think you misunderstand the jury system.
barrinmw t1_isb7jje wrote
Jurors literally make decisions, that is their job. They decide on guilt and they decide on sentencing, sometimes. And the jury is the last line of defense against a tyrannical justice system.
PaxNova t1_isbkzd6 wrote
Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law. That "sometimes" does a lot of work there, as most states and the federal government do not allow juries to determine sentencing.
A jury may be the last line against tyranny, but for a criminal trial, they also almost always have to be unanimous. That means if a single person out of twelve disagrees with the law, nobody can be convicted of it. That would cover pretty much all laws.
AmHoomon t1_iscmkc7 wrote
> Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law.
Here's an exercise:
Where, in what law, binds jurors as you describe?
PaxNova t1_iscp7aw wrote
Definitions will vary in statute by state, but Wex defines then as finders of fact. The definition will be used in statute.
There is difficulty in holding them to it, as you cannot dispute the facts once they are found by the jury except on certain circumstances, but the intent / spirit of the law is clear.
barrinmw t1_isbmmlb wrote
Looking it up, in death penalty cases it looks like jurors always get to determine if it is applicable and it always has to be unanimous regardless of state or federal.
ithriosa t1_iscxsgt wrote
No one is saying that jurors have no choice...
Tipop t1_isbq45j wrote
Ok, let’s flip the argument and see if it holds water.
The law says execution is not a valid punishment for rape… but the jury is selected with 12 women — all former rape victims and angry about it — who are more than willing to sentence the rapist to death if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.
If it’s okay for the jurists to ignore the law in one direction, is it ok to go the other direction?
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.
Tipop t1_isbu5ro wrote
The argument you made wasn’t “we shouldn’t put people to death”. Your argument was that jurors should be allowed to dictate the sentence even if it’s not allowed by the law.
I’m against the death penalty, too, but your argument doesn’t hold water.
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.
sweetpeapickle t1_isbu2cc wrote
Well it's not as simple as that. Main part would be the where. In some states, the judge can overrule. Not to mention, the defendent's lawyer might have a say with 12 women, & I'm sure at some point in the questioning of potential jurors, that might come up. Then there is the appeal.
Tipop t1_isbuq3o wrote
We’re not arguing about whether it would survive appeal or if the judge could set aside the verdict. That’s not the question here. The question is “If it’s okay for jurors to ignore the law and DENY the death penalty when the law says it should be applied, then is it ok for jurors to APPLY the death penalty when the law says it shouldn’t?”
NemosGhost t1_iscu1f8 wrote
The point is that the juror can protect the accused from the state. It doesn't work the other way around. The idea is bogus.
Also the judge can absolutely throw out a verdict of guilty or lesson a sentence. The judge however cannot overrule a verdict of not guilty or a decision not to impose the death penalty.
Flat_Hat8861 t1_isc87wa wrote
You seem a bit confused on what a jury does.
Juries are arbiters of facts. Judges are arbiters of law.
If it is a question of facts (and the right hasn't been waived), it is exclusively a jury question. On a death penalty case the question to the jury is "do the facts presented warrant death as the punishment?" There is not a question on if the law supports such a penalty. The summary of the law the juries get helps them understand what the bar is, but only the jury decides if the facts are sufficient.
Your example doesn't provide any questions of fact. If death is not a possibility the jury would never be asked if the facts justify an impossible outcome. That is a question of law that is decided by the judge. This case would be a normal (not capital) criminal case. The jury is given a summary of the law for each charge filed and the jury is asked if the facts presented meet the requirements. The judge would then handle sentencing later (because that is a law question).
ithriosa t1_isb8yfq wrote
>Jurors literally make decisions, that is their job. They decide on guilt and they decide on sentencing, sometimes.
I never said that they didn't make decisions. However they are contained in the decisions that they can make, and they are contrained in how they are supposed to base their decisions.
>And the jury is the last line of defense against a tyrannical justice system.
Sure, however the Justice system is also supposed to be the last line of defense against popular sentiment and popular bias. There are laws, and the jury needs to be conducted in accordance with the law.
Jurors often need to make a decision that goes against their personal opinions and in accordance to the law and evidence presented.
TheNewGirl_ t1_isb9ru0 wrote
>The request comes after a jury Thursday kept Cruz from getting the death penalty, recommending life in prison without parole by default when it did not unanimously agree Cruz should get capital punishment.
Sounds like the jurors are allowed to decide if Capital Punishment is warranted and if not they can by default recommend Life Imprisonment
If you are of the mind that Life Imprisonment is the correct course of action the law says a juror can make that decision
Literally 3 people on this specifc jury were against the death penalty - thats why hes not getting death
ithriosa t1_iscwetr wrote
>Sounds like the jurors are allowed to decide if Capital Punishment is warranted and if not they can by default recommend Life Imprisonment
Yes. I know. I never said the jury couldn't or shouldnt...
supereasybake t1_isbgnpg wrote
Not clear if they were against the death penalty in general or if they were against it in this particular case because of fetal alcohol syndrome.
TheNewGirl_ t1_isbh5vi wrote
That would have been something the lawyers would have asked during the jury selection process
were you there, ofcourse you dont know if not
haplol t1_isbrlzw wrote
Jury nullification is the obvious part of the judicial system that proves you wrong
ithriosa t1_iscxfap wrote
It is part of the judicial system in a similar way as shoplifting is part of shopping. You can do it, and you'll likely get away with it so long as you don't tell the proprietor what you are planning.
Nullification does not prove me wrong. The fact that some do not consider the law or evidence does not refute that they are supposed to. Neglect of duty does not disprove existence of duty.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbg9c7 wrote
Um, no... as someone else pointed out a juror can act as a wildcard against judicial tyranny. That is why we have it. Prosecutors (and sometimes Judges hate that). Terrorists aren't the only ones who hate our freedoms. Me, I hate the 2nd amendment and gun nuts. Cruz should be treated but we have to lock him up just in case he gets his hands on some more guns and we aren't going to get rid of the guns, so... I applaud the courage of the jurors who stood up to the group think brutality! Hooray for them but this is worrisome to me because it might give the state another shot at trying to kill him (which I bet would make some of you sooo happy).
ithriosa t1_iscwajn wrote
>someone else pointed out a juror can act as a wildcard against judicial tyranny.
And as a wildcard against justice.
>I applaud the courage of the jurors who stood up to the group think brutality! Hooray for them but this is worrisome to me because it might give the state another shot at trying to kill him (which I bet would make some of you sooo happy).
I dont care. That isn't relevant. I am also against the deth penalty. I think it is fine that the jury voted against death. But I also think it is proper and appropriate to exclude jurors who express a disregard to the law
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isd104e wrote
And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly...?
ithriosa t1_isdj7xz wrote
>And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly
The juror didn't express disregard...
I am not saying that voting against death penalty in this case is disregard for the law.
I am saying that refusing to apply the death penalty in ANY circumstance regardless of evidence or detail is disregard.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_iset3ci wrote
And I would counter that not killing other humans on purpose is a natural law that I respect to the point of disregard for any country's law that may require it. Yours is an argument is support of lawful killing. You cannot possibly find a high ground here - except, perhaps, among killers.
ithriosa t1_isf146d wrote
>Yours is an argument is support of lawful killing.
Lawful killing is near necessary on some level. I am also against the death penalty, but I doubt you really believe what you are saying now. There are many lawful killings, I doubt you oppose all of them.
>You cannot possibly find a high ground here - except, perhaps, among killers.
There was a young girl in wisconsin who's parent were shot and killed. She was abducted by the killer and tortured and raped for multiple months. If she had been able to kill her captor would you say she took the low ground?
Since you think any killing should be considered unlawful, do you think she is a criminal?
>And I would counter that not killing other humans on purpose is a natural law that I respect to the point of disregard for any country's law that may require it
Sure it may be a natural sentiment. But it is not a law. Just because you think something is right does not make it a law. Many people think it is a natural law that killers be put to death, their feelings are not the same as law. Some people believe that rape is simply a natural part of humanity which women are overreacting to, and they would not vote to convict most rapists during trials. Some people believe that it is a natural law that whites are superior to others, and should not be punished as harshly.
Everyone thinks their own feelings are good, but luckily your feelings are not laws
I am not saying that you should not hold your views. But instead that it is reasonable that a state court rejects you as a juror given your disregard for the law which the court is established to uphold.
[deleted] t1_isd8xxc wrote
[removed]
Taysir385 t1_isbn3k2 wrote
> Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason, they need to be based on the law in question.
The fact that a lawyer is often prohibited from discussing jury nullification does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is in fact a fundamental balancing part of the conceptual framework for the US legal system.
ithriosa t1_iscvxmx wrote
I did not say it does not exist.
>It is in fact a fundamental balancing part of the conceptual framework for the US legal system.
Do you think nullification was fine when it was very commonly used until relatively recently to make black people guilty of crimes they didn't commit?
Taysir385 t1_isczv5z wrote
> Do you think nullification was fine when it was very commonly used until relatively recently to make black people guilty of crimes they didn't commit?
The interesting thing about that is that a jury does not have the power to put someone on trial, only to adjudicate guilt. In order for this to happen, there first needs to be a police department that arrests the person, and then a prosecutor that chose to press that charge, and then a judge that didn't dismiss it as foundationless. So yeah, that's not great, but it's only a symptom of a system that is otherwise already 100% corrupt and broken. No, it wasn't fine, but that's also not an argument in any way against it existing no.
ithriosa t1_isdjxby wrote
>No, it wasn't fine, but that's also not an argument in any way against it existing no.
It is a pretty good argument against it. If a law is bad, then believing that a juror going rouge is not a proper or reliable remedy. That introduces huge amounts of bias which always puts vulnerable groups in danger. Many white individuals have achieved nullification that their black peers rarely would.
Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.
Purposefully introducing additional bias into the system is a bad thing for any fair application of justice.
And it allows death penalty laws to survive longer than they should since a majority believe that it can only be applied to the dreaded "other people" due to nullification.
Taysir385 t1_isdki3e wrote
> Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.
I agree that no one should 'rely' upon jury nullification, and we should also work wherever possible to strike unjust laws from the record.
But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.
ithriosa t1_isdliny wrote
>But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.
It is. Nullification is a bad thing for the US justice system and one reason why there are so many discrepancies between how different groups are sentenced. It introduces very significant bias which ripples across the other stages as well.
For instance it is harder to sentence a young handsome white Christian for rape or drug possession. This creates disparities in sentencing which are shielded from standard political review because the disparity of the overly harsh large are only felt by the vulnerable minorites. These groups do not have the voting power to reverse such laws.
If sentencing was more standard in the US, then many of the draconian laws would have been lightened or repealed a long time ago.
Taysir385 t1_isdnjqh wrote
So your argument is that we shouldn't allow a jury to have this power because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.
I'm happy to grant that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world, and I'll trust twelve random people (or even twelve semi random people) with the pursuit of true justice far more than I'll trust any police officer or prosecutor. And as long as that's the case, jury nullification is fundamentally necessary, even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.
ithriosa t1_isdrezo wrote
>that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world
That is the opposite of what I am arguing. I am arguing that in a perfect ideal world nullification would be fine. However we don't live in such a world
>because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.
No. I am saying that practices such as nullification is a source of the lack of integrity. That it weakens the integrity
>even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.
Even if it exaggerates and magnifies those biases?
Here is a serious question: would you be in favor of a law that said simply "white people are immune from the death penalty"?
You could argue that in a perfect world, such a rule would apply to all people, but in this imperfect world this is better than nothing.This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?
Taysir385 t1_isdv4a1 wrote
> .This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?
It's clearly a rhetorical question, because there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.
It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out. Be well, friend.
ithriosa t1_isewjt2 wrote
>It's clearly a rhetorical question,
It is not rhetorical. I was honestly not sure how you would answer. And I am surprised by your answer.
>there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.
Sure no "just world" however we do not live in a perfectly just world.
Why is it absurd? By your prior logic it should be better than nothing. If you see the death penalty as an unjust law for which a juror should be able to prevent someone from facing for ANY reason, then what do you think is wrong with this? This offers an additional reason for which a person can avoid this unjust law
It seems fairly consistent with your prior reasoning.
>It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out.
It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.
Taysir385 t1_isft63s wrote
> It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.
No friend, I left when you tried to change the discussion from general examination of jury nullification to specific arguments about unconscious racial bias and whether or not I support the death penalty.
EfficientStorage7190 t1_isczgyx wrote
Emmett Till's murderers got off on jury nullification. Sounds like the justice system was working as intended. /s
[deleted] t1_ise3up5 wrote
[deleted]
Anonuser123abc t1_isc0s8z wrote
Jurors are the final finders of fact during a trial. This absolutely includes jury nullification.
NemosGhost t1_isctafg wrote
> Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason,
Yes they are and that's by design. Jury nullification was intentional and our founding fathers explicitly said that jurors are supposed to judge the facts and the law.
ithriosa t1_iscvfox wrote
Ah no wonder jurors who wish to do this need to in secret and by conspiracy. /s
[deleted] t1_isbecr8 wrote
[removed]
Ailly84 t1_isk8k3j wrote
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. This comes down to the question “does he deserve to die for what he did”. A jury should not be curated to get an answer of “yes” to that question.
ithriosa t1_iskaepj wrote
>A jury should not be curated to get an answer of “yes” to that question.
That is not what I am saying.
I am not saying that jurors should agree to the death penalty. I am saying that jurors should decide on the death penalty based on the law and evidence, rather than a pre-trial diametric opposition to the death penalty.
I think it would be just as bad to have a juror who believed pretrial that 100% of such cases should result in a death penalty. A juror who is already set in a decision without considering evidence or the law is clearly prejudiced against both the law and the case.
Ailly84 t1_islnb8y wrote
If the law said “murder = death penalty” then you’d be right. I don’t think it does. Correct me if I’m wrong though.
ithriosa t1_islod9q wrote
>If the law said “murder = death penalty” then you’d be right. I don’t think it does
Did you read anything i typed?
Again, you are stating the opposite point of what I am saying. I am NOT saying that the jurors need to vote for the death penalty.
Ailly84 t1_islr7kz wrote
I can’t go back to the original I replied to (can’t figure the app out…). I’m going to go with I misunderstood you. What I recall was a statement that people who wouldn’t vote yes on the death penalty coming into the case should be excluded from serving on the jury for that case. Maybe I’m wrong?
ithriosa t1_isltj6b wrote
>What I recall was a statement that people who wouldn’t vote yes on the death penalty coming into the case should be excluded from serving on the jury for that case. Maybe I’m wrong?
No, that is not what i stated.
1: I am saying that the jury can vote either yes or no. That is fine.
However, a potential or current juror who decided to vote either yes or no BEFORE attending the case should be excluded.
For instance, a person who is so opposed to the death penalty that they would never vote yes, or a person who thinks that all murders need to get the death penalty. These people should be excluded from the jury.
A juror should not vote yes coming In as they also should not vote no coming into the case. They need to base their decisions on the details of the case and the law. A juror who has already made their mind on a specific ruling before hearing any evidence or the law is unfit to be a juror and is removed.
2: In addition, a juror should vote yes or no based on the law and the evidence presented in the case. Rather than based on unrelated or inadmissable reasons such as the defendents race.
Ailly84 t1_isluhkl wrote
Yeah that’s what I remember.
Here’s the issue I have. Starting with point 2, the law doesn’t say anything about when someone SHOULD be executed, only which charges it can apply to. (Again, I think…)
From there, you get into a strange position when you start excluding people who are against the death penalty. You’re not looking at a random group of people anymore since you’ve just excluded slightly less than half the population.
ithriosa t1_islvwtw wrote
>Here’s the issue I have. Starting with point 2, the law doesn’t say anything about when someone SHOULD be executed, only which charges it can apply to. (Again, I think…)
Exactly. And the juror should not go into the case thinking the person SHOULD be executed.
>From there, you get into a strange position when you start excluding people who are against the death penalty.
It is not just that, it is also excluding people who have already decided that the death penalty should be applied.
>You’re not looking at a random group of people anymore since you’ve just excluded slightly less than half the population.
A jury is not supposed to be random. It is supposed to be people within the jurisdiction, who are willing to fairly consider both sides of the case and the law.
For instance, in a racist town, a majority of the people may be super racist and think a black defendant should be found guilty even before hearing any evidence. Even though those people are both random and representative does not mean they are fit to be the jury.
They need to be people willing to consider the case based on the evidence and the law. The juror should not be overly prejudiced toward a specific outcome before the case.
Ailly84 t1_islwugm wrote
I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way. I know you’d used the example of excluding both those who are 100% for and 100% against, but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.
ithriosa t1_islz46q wrote
>I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way.
It is supposed to be weighted toward the bounds of the law. If the law allows the pursuit of a death penalty, then the jury needs to be able to consider that.
The court is not a venue of public opinion. It is meant to uphold the law.
>but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.
For instance consider this. You live in a medium to small town and you get raped. They assemble a jury. Do you think it makes sense for them to allow the best friend of your alleged rapist to be on the jury? And on the other side it would not be appropriate for your best friend to be on the jury. Why? Because these people have already made their mind on the case.
So if 90% of your town are against you and will vote against your claim no matter what, that does not mean that the jury should also be biased in the same way.
Juries are not supposed to be random. They are supposed to be neutral. Not everyone is neutral. And in some cases most people are not neutral.
The court is meant to uphold the law. And the law affords both sides with rights. Neither side can have a fair trial if the jury is prejudiced toward one side from the outset.
This is why it can take the court a long time to assemble a jury in high profile cases. Because it is possible that 95% of the population is already prejudiced. However, the court needs to find the 5% which is neutral of the law and the case such that both sides can have a fair trial.
The purpose of a trial is NOT to uphold the rights of the jury. And it is NOT supposed to be fair for the jury. It is supposed to be fair and neutral for the defense and prosecution. The law has guaranteed that they have a fair trial within the law. And if only 5% of jurors are willing to allow a fair trial, then the court needs to find that 5%.
Even if 90% of your town would never consider your rape claim, and 7% would never consider your attackers claims of innocence, then it is the duty of the court to find the 3% who is willing to be neutral
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments