Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ithriosa t1_isb8yfq 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

>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.

−2

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

19

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...

2

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.

−4

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

6

haplol t1_isbrlzw wrote

Jury nullification is the obvious part of the judicial system that proves you wrong

7

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.

1

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).

−4

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

2

Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isd104e wrote

And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly...?

−1

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.

1

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.

0

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.

1