Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 25, 2013 11:05:49 GMT -5
I know, kind of a dark and morbid topic, but I'm curious as to what you think.
In Indiana, the prosecution can request the Jury seek the death penalty during a sentencing hearing and a Jury (this is the important part) makes a reccomendation and a judge follows it if it falls within the bounds of the law. The judge HAS to follow the Jury's reccomendation as to wheather to invoke capital punishment or not as long as it's legal.
So the moral question is, if you were on a Jury, could you sentance a man or woman to death? Do you think it's fair to ask common citizens to make a decision like that, and to possibly have it on their consciounce?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 25, 2013 11:09:33 GMT -5
Personally, this would be very tough for me to do. I tend to lean against capital punishment, and I would not want to run the risk of possibly sentencing the wrong person.
On the other hand, some crimes, like the Colorado theatre shooting, are so hainious that death seems the only appropriate response.
As I'm sure many of you will say, it would depend on the situation. But for me, I think it would have to be a very specific situation where I would endorse capital punishment on a Jury. There would have to be absolutely no doubt in my mind they did it (not just beyond a reasonable doubt), and the crime would have to be particularly bad. But even then, sending someone to death would weigh heavily on my conscience.
Personally I don't think it's fair for Indiana law to be set up like that. I think a judge should be responsible for the sentencing and not a Jury.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,509
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 25, 2013 11:11:53 GMT -5
I could do it - but I see the death penalty as a little futile. It takes so long to get from point A to point B, and it is so expensive. It might just be better for society to keep them locked up until they die on their own. Let them have all the cigarettes they can handle. Maybe that will shorten their lives.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Apr 25, 2013 11:18:18 GMT -5
I could, although it would depend on the facts of the case. To sentence someone to death or life without parole in Indiana, certain aggravating factors have to be present. Someone who kills someone during the commission of a crime can be sentenced to death - but I think I'd take a harsher view toward someone who killed someone while raping them vs. someone who killed someone while burglarizing their house. No real logical reason for that, the first scenario just seems worse.
Even if the prosecution proved several aggravating factors without a reasonable doubt, I'm not sure I would be able to sentence someone to death - it would depend on what the factors were.
I think it's fairer to put that decision in the hands of 12 jurors than 1 judge. The judge is paid more, but that is a heavy burden for one person to bear (versus all 12 jurors who have to agree in order to sentence someone to death). Not to mention safety concerns, death threats, etc. toward the judge and his or her family. I suppose a vengeful defendant could go after the jurors as well, but it's harder to target 12 regular citizens than 1 semi-public figure.
Is it completely fair, probably not. But those who are unwilling to sentence someone to death should be weeded out in the jury selection phase - so in theory those who end up on the jury have all been willing to accept that burden.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,640
|
Post by giramomma on Apr 25, 2013 11:19:16 GMT -5
To me it would depend on the evidence.
My university law school is home to the innocence project. I don't know how long it's been going on, but at my university alone, 16 convictions have been overturned.
Apparently, in the latest case, a man was convicted of murder pretty much based on one eye witness account. IMVHO, one eye witness doesn't provide enough evidence.
Now, if there were eye witnesses, and DNA evidence supporting the case, coupled with a heinous crime, then I could see it. That's a lot of "ifs,", though.
I couldn't live with myself if I sentenced an innocent person to death.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,436
|
Post by swamp on Apr 25, 2013 11:21:59 GMT -5
No, I could not.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Apr 25, 2013 11:23:20 GMT -5
Maybe. I'm thinking of the people that deliberately starve their kids and lock them up somewhere. I'm pretty sure I could sentence them to death fairly easily.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 4:24:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 11:24:02 GMT -5
I could because I am good at doing what I am supposed to do and if that meant sentencing to death, I would do it. That said, I am anti-death penalty, so I doubt the prosecution would put me on a jury and I live in CT which doesn't have a death penalty.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 25, 2013 11:25:46 GMT -5
What do you mean midwestJD? They won't let people on a Jury if they have any moral qualms about the death penalty? Why does that disqualify you?
So the only fit for jury duty are those who are eager to execute convicted felons? That does not seem right.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,373
|
Post by movingforward on Apr 25, 2013 11:27:53 GMT -5
As other have said it would definitely depend on the circumstances. There are times when I think locking someone up in a hard core prison without the possibility of parole might actually be a harsher punishment than death. I think one basis for my decision would probably be what the victim's family wants. If they were allowed to address the court I would probably want to know what they wanted. They are really the ones who have to live what has happened to their loved one. If someone tortured/killed someone I loved I would probably want the court to sentence them to death.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Apr 25, 2013 11:30:35 GMT -5
What do you mean midwestJD? They won't let people on a Jury if they have any moral qualms about the death penalty? Why does that disqualify you? So the only fit for jury duty are those who are eager to execute convicted felons? That does not seem right. If it's a capital case, and a potential juror isn't willing to sentence someone to death, the prosecution will almost certainly strike them. They're not going to eliminate you for that reason if you're up for a jury on any other felony, misdemeanor, or civil case, since the death penalty is not an option. But for the small segment of cases in which the defendant - if convicted - could be sentenced to death (or life in prison), they want jurors who will be able to do that.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Apr 25, 2013 11:36:06 GMT -5
Earlier posters make some valid points about the number of convictions that have been overturned based on todays evedence technology.
However, for sentences that are imposed now and in the future, if there is iron clad evidence that a person committed a crime that was so bad that we'd never want them to return to mainstream society, I say fry em, shot em, give em a shot. If this person is a menace to mainstream society, I don't feel a need to help provide their room, board, clothes, and medical care for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years (as IL taxpayers did with confessed rapist, torturer, and murderer of 8 nurses, Richard Speck). I just as soon they had a very short life expectancy and I paid less taxes to support an over crowded penal system.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,436
|
Post by swamp on Apr 25, 2013 11:38:15 GMT -5
What do you mean midwestJD? They won't let people on a Jury if they have any moral qualms about the death penalty? Why does that disqualify you? So the only fit for jury duty are those who are eager to execute convicted felons? That does not seem right. A death qualified jury panel is people who do not have a moral opposition to imposing the death penalty. If you are morally opposed, you would not be on that jury. So, anyone who is facing the death penalty is already facing a jury are willing to sentence people to death.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Apr 25, 2013 11:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 4:24:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 11:40:36 GMT -5
No
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Apr 25, 2013 11:41:47 GMT -5
What do you mean midwestJD? They won't let people on a Jury if they have any moral qualms about the death penalty? Why does that disqualify you? So the only fit for jury duty are those who are eager to execute convicted felons? That does not seem right. A death qualified jury panel is people who do not have a moral opposition to imposing the death penalty. If you are morally opposed, you would not be on that jury. So, anyone who is facing the death penalty is already facing a jury are willing to sentence people to death. Would that by definition mean capital punishment would be more likely to happen if you select a Jury based on who's willing to kill a convict?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,436
|
Post by swamp on Apr 25, 2013 11:43:33 GMT -5
A death qualified jury panel is people who do not have a moral opposition to imposing the death penalty. If you are morally opposed, you would not be on that jury. So, anyone who is facing the death penalty is already facing a jury are willing to sentence people to death. Would that by definition mean capital punishment would be more likely to happen if you select a Jury based on who's willing to kill a convict? I guess so........... [img]http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif[/img] If you have people who are morally opposed to the death penalty, you'd never have the death penalty.
|
|
MB-NY
Senior Member
DOH!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by MB-NY on Apr 25, 2013 11:48:26 GMT -5
I could do it if it was required of the jury, but only in a case that was so cut and dry, where there could be absolutely no doubt of guilt. In my own opinion, I was never in favor of the death penalty, only because of the chance of executing the wrong person. I've also felt that it was too quick of a punishment. Better to be locked up with no parole.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Apr 25, 2013 11:51:06 GMT -5
I think it's arguable. Everyone who's responded "yes" on this thread has indicated that their willingness to do so would be highly dependent on the circumstances. Get 12 of those people together and I think it would be pretty hard to come to a consensus on that point unless it was a really, really heinous case. And a case like that *might* be enough to sway even someone opposed to the death penalty (assuming for the sake of argument they were allowed on the jury).
It would be interesting to know the number of cases in which the DP is sought vs. the number in which it is imposed. I know there are very, very few of those cases in Indiana, but I'm not sure if it's because the prosecution doesn't seek it or because the jury doesn't recommend it.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Apr 25, 2013 11:51:14 GMT -5
For certain crimes, yes, without ANY hesitation.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 25, 2013 11:53:59 GMT -5
Earlier posters make some valid points about the number of convictions that have been overturned based on todays evedence technology. However, for sentences that are imposed now and in the future, if there is iron clad evidence that a person committed a crime that was so bad that we'd never want them to return to mainstream society, I say fry em, shot em, give em a shot. If this person is a menace to mainstream society, I don't feel a need to help provide their room, board, clothes, and medical care for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years (as IL taxpayers did with confessed rapist, torturer, and murderer of 8 nurses, Richard Speck). I just as soon they had a very short life expectancy and I paid less taxes to support an over crowded penal system. That's sort of where I am. A lot that are opposed to the death penalty say that it's more expensive to try and kill someone than to just keep them locked up forever. Which is true, because there's so many damned appeals and ways to delay it that it takes decades to get the final order. (I actually wonder what the ratio is of people that have actually been killed vs people that have been sentenced to death.) I think the whole process of death sentences should be overhauled. A prosecutor should look at the crime itself and the evidence of the crime. I don't think trials that are based on circumstantial evidence should ever be considered in a death penalty. I think there needs to be DNA evidence and other facts (eyewitnesses - but multiple, video, photo, etc) that basically remove the doubt. If the threshold for determining whether to try them for death was raised, I think the process to kill them after could be shortened. The lengthy process to kill someone was initiated way before things like DNA testing, a camera in everyone's pocket, video surveillance on street corners existed and all those things greatly increase the accuracy of catching the right person so before that I see having a decade plus long process to take someone's life. As for me, I don't know. I'm not morally opposed to the death penalty, but I'd want what I outlined above to even consider it.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Apr 25, 2013 11:55:55 GMT -5
A death qualified jury panel is people who do not have a moral opposition to imposing the death penalty. If you are morally opposed, you would not be on that jury. So, anyone who is facing the death penalty is already facing a jury are willing to sentence people to death. Would that by definition mean capital punishment would be more likely to happen if you select a Jury based on who's willing to kill a convict? Maybe. Some also think it makes a jury more likely to convict period - even if the sentence isn't death. Or at least that is what some people said as to why they went for the death penalty in the Casey Anthony trial.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Apr 25, 2013 12:00:55 GMT -5
Easily, but I have no soul. I'd probably want a higher level of evidence than just to convict. Without being in that situation I tend to think I'd want a couple of eye witnesses (which I think might be written into some laws anyways).
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Apr 25, 2013 12:06:43 GMT -5
To get to the death penalty phase in this state, the prosecution has to prove the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt AND one or more aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high standard, and I'm not sure requiring specific forms of evidence would add much to it.
The defendants in some of the older cases that were overturned should never have been convicted, because it seems unlikely that one eyewitness and no other corroborating evidence would ever be enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt - even if the eyewitness was very credible. The judge, prosecution, and juries share responsibility for the results of those cases.
As far as the appeals process, the appeals courts don't reweigh the evidence - they ensure that the proper processes were followed, that the defendant was aware of his rights, that the jury was given correct instructions, etc. Increasing the amount of evidence required for conviction isn't going to shorten this process.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Apr 25, 2013 12:09:47 GMT -5
What do you mean midwestJD? They won't let people on a Jury if they have any moral qualms about the death penalty? Why does that disqualify you? So the only fit for jury duty are those who are eager to execute convicted felons? That does not seem right. A death qualified jury panel is people who do not have a moral opposition to imposing the death penalty. If you are morally opposed, you would not be on that jury. So, anyone who is facing the death penalty is already facing a jury are willing to sentence people to death. I got dismissed from a jury panel once because when asked, I told them I was opposed to the death penalty.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,436
|
Post by swamp on Apr 25, 2013 12:11:39 GMT -5
A death qualified jury panel is people who do not have a moral opposition to imposing the death penalty. If you are morally opposed, you would not be on that jury. So, anyone who is facing the death penalty is already facing a jury are willing to sentence people to death. I got dismissed from a jury panel once because when asked, I told them I was opposed to the death penalty. why are they asking you about the death penalty when it's not a death penalty case? I'm not allowed to ask that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 4:24:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 12:12:41 GMT -5
maybe the other lawyer forgot to object.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Apr 25, 2013 12:14:16 GMT -5
I got dismissed from a jury panel once because when asked, I told them I was opposed to the death penalty. why are they asking you about the death penalty when it's not a death penalty case? I'm not allowed to ask that. It was. A gruesome child rape and murder case. She was a kindergartener ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png)
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Apr 25, 2013 12:20:53 GMT -5
For certain crimes, yes, without ANY hesitation. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahthat.gif) The bar would have to be high (absolute guilt proven) but yes I wouldn't have any problem sentencing someone.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Apr 25, 2013 12:23:26 GMT -5
Yes, i could and would give a death sentence for a heinous crime.
|
|