Jodi Arias speaks to jury, pleads for life

[JLM]

And what about those that were innocent but executed.

Every precaution has to be taken to ensure this doesn't happen or at the very least is kept to a minimum. Possibly any one "found" guilty of a single crime should be exempt from the death penalty, doing that will at least ensure that anyone who does undergo the death penalty will at least be guilty of some heinous crime even if not the one they were sentenced for. Life is a risk, Innocent people die in every walk of life.

 

[Goober]

Every precaution has to be taken to ensure this doesn't happen or at the very least is kept to a minimum. Possibly any one "found" guilty of a single crime should be exempt from the death penalty, doing that will at least ensure that anyone who does undergo the death penalty will at least be guilty of some heinous crime even if not the one they were sentenced for. Life is a risk, Innocent people die in every walk of life.

Nope- People have been convicted of more than 1 death- found to be innocent later, much later.
The Death Penalty is something I am against. It is wrong.

 

[JLM]

Nope- People have been convicted of more than 1 death- found to be innocent later, much later.
The Death Penalty is something I am against. It is wrong.

I can respect that opinion!

 

[Sal]

Nope- People have been convicted of more than 1 death- found to be innocent later, much later.
The Death Penalty is something I am against. It is wrong.

the death of even one innocent can never be justified

 

[Kreskin]

One would think that if they can't agree then it should the lesser penalty. Death I can see as needing all jurors to agree but this could go for multiple jury's if either had to be all for either.

 

[Sal]

One would think that if they can't agree then it should the lesser penalty. Death I can see as needing all jurors to agree but this could go for multiple jury's if either had to be all for either.

a problem I could see with this would be jury stacking, if the death penalty was a likelihood in any particular case, it would only take one anti-death penalty person on each jury to over turn the penalty, may as well eliminate the death penalty if it were to go that way.

 

[Goober]

One would think that if they can't agree then it should the lesser penalty. Death I can see as needing all jurors to agree but this could go for multiple jury's if either had to be all for either.

Not there- If they are deadlocked- hung jury- a new jury is brought in. After that if they are hung it is up to the Judge but he / she cannot impose the DP. It it life without parole or life, 25 min. 1 or the other.

 

[Kreskin]

Not there- If they are deadlocked- hung jury- a new jury is brought in. After that if they are hung it is up to the Judge but he / she cannot impose the DP. It it life without parole or life, 25 min. 1 or the other.

OK, didn't know that, that makes sense. Thanks Goober.

 

[JLM]

Not there- If they are deadlocked- hung jury- a new jury is brought in. After that if they are hung it is up to the Judge but he / she cannot impose the DP. It it life without parole or life, 25 min. 1 or the other.

Maybe life with the provision they can be used for scientific experiments would be another wise option. (Like what effect would being in orbit at 50 thousand feet for a month have on the human body)!

 

[karrie]

No way is a jury voting unanimously for the death of a young woman. (jaded, yes)

 

[B00Mer]

Nope- People have been convicted of more than 1 death- found to be innocent later, much later.
The Death Penalty is something I am against. It is wrong.

So these "innocent" people have been exonerated because of modern ferensic technology that proved them not to be the murderer..


It's interesting how you will trust modern science to prove someone is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, but not to prove someone is guilty as hell and should meet his maker...

 

[JLM]

So these "innocent" people have been exonerated because of modern ferensic technology that proved them not to be the murderer..


It's interesting how you will trust modern science to prove someone is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, but not to prove someone is guilty as hell and should meet his maker...

Yep, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

 

[Kreskin]

With a new jury, if it is the death penalty, it will likely spawn even more appeals than the usual DP. So if so she'll be appealing until she's 90, then they'll lower it to life for humanitarian reasons.

 

[petros]

Criminal and civil cases have differing standards of proof.

They do?

 

[B00Mer]

They do?

Yes, they do, at least in the USA.

O.J. Simpson was NOT guilty of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman as judged by criminal court jury. Yet a civil court jury held him legally responsible for their deaths.

A civil case has a lower burden of proof ..

 

[petros]

No it doesn't.

 

[EagleSmack]

The jury knew he did it too but they had to follow along within the limits of the law. They can't express how thy truly feel, they can express their opinions of the evidence presented.

Even though he was innocent of the murder charge before the courts doesn't mean he was innocent of killing Nicole.

Would you trust him and give him a position of authority?

I think there was plenty of evidence to convict him. You disagree?

I wouldn't trust him with anything.

 

[Kreskin]

They do?

Yes, there is a difference. Criminal burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe in civil cases it's a balance of probabilities (or something like that). Easier to get a conviction in civil court.

 

[Mowich]

One would think that if they can't agree then it should the lesser penalty. Death I can see as needing all jurors to agree but this could go for multiple jury's if either had to be all for either.

Things can still change, Kreskin. The mounting costs of the trial are bound to put a lot of pressure on the attorney generals department - they could still decide to take death off and just go for life in prison. Only one more jury may be impaneled then it is up to the judge who can give life w/out or life w/ a chance of parole - choice would be hers. She cannot alone impose death.

 

[karrie]

Things can still change, Kreskin. The mounting costs of the trial are bound to put a lot of pressure on the attorney generals department - they could still decide to take death off and just go for life in prison. Only one more jury may be impaneled then it is up to the judge who can give life w/out or life w/ a chance of parole - choice would be hers. She cannot alone impose death.

If they're smart they'll keep the death penalty on the table so that life without parole is the palatable option, and life with a chance of parole never factors into the equation.