Tipop
Tipop t1_isbu5ro 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
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.
Tipop t1_isbq45j 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
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?
Tipop t1_isbuq3o wrote
Reply to comment by sweetpeapickle in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b
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?”