Death penalty: Mandatory statutes or discretion to juries?

Question

In the early 1970s, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was constitutional (i.e., not cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment), but also held that because of the irreversible weight of the punishment, special due process requirements had to be met. In those early cases, the Court struck down mandatory death penatly statutes, holding that there should always be an individualized determination of aggravating and mititgating factors made by a finder-of-fact to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed. However, for the last 30 years, giving discretion to juries and to prosecutors has statistically produced controversial results that disturb even those people who favor the death penalty. For example, the average black defendant who is found guilty of murdering a white victim is several times more likely to get the death penalty (rather than life in prison) as a punishment versus a white defendant who is found guilty of murding a black victim

Answer 1

The problem is our judicial system is very flawed. There are many innocent people in jail, and guilty ones in the street. I agree some people are given lighter sentences than what they deserve and others harsher than they deserve. But our system is what it is, if you don't plan on getting out there and trying to make a change then there is no point in complaining about it. I am back and forth on the issue of the death penalty, but to answer your question, yes there should be certain criteria for sending someone to deathrow. There should be certain regulations. But every crime is different, and until it happens to you or someone in your family it is hard to say. and that goes for being the defendant or the victim. it is hard on both families.

Answer 2

What's your question?? Yes a jury should have discretion. We trust the jury enough to decide if a man is guilty of a crime such as murder, but we don't trust that same jury to decide what his punishment should be?? They have the power to find him guilty which strips him of rights and his liberty, and yes sometimes his life, but yet we don't trust them to decide his punishment within the limits of the law??? Jury discretion is a wonderful thing. You might want to look at what is called jury nullification as well, and that might help you to understand why a jury with discretion is a good thing!!!

Answer 3

The death penalty must be perfect. As there is no such thing as perfection, there should be no death penalty.

Answer 4

needed for what? For homicide? For rape? For shoplifting? For parking illegally? needed whilst? whilst the sufferer is a minor? whilst the sufferer is pregnant? whilst the sufferer is blond? whilst the sufferer is extra desirable than a guinea pig? My factor is that your question is only too obscure to elicit an answer. according to probability, "would desire to the loss of existence penalty be needed for homicide?" or "would desire to the loss of existence penalty be needed for premeditated homicide?" you will desire to wager from those responses that my answer is "No," because of the fact there are too many factors in figuring out the place to allure to the line for the place it turns into needed.