Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbg9c7 wrote

Reply to comment by ithriosa in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b

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