Let's say you were a juror on a very highly known murder case.Let's go even further and say a double murder to make it more interesting.You heard all testimonies from both sides.There is a slight discripency in some of the evidence but the majority of the jurors say guilty but you hesitate.The majority rules on guilty. knowing this gut feeling could you as one of the jurors give the sentence of death knowing that there could be a slight chance of this person's innosence?
2006-12-12 14:08:20 · 8 answers · asked by shuggabhugga05 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, I wouldn't. I'm opposed to the death penalty, primarily because it is irreversible. Oops is hardly a fitting apology to the family of someone you killed.
I would refuse to render a verdict, and in a capitol case, the jury vote has to unanimous, And until that doubt had bee laid to rest or I knew that the Jury would only give Life in Prison, I would refuse to say he was guilty. I would rather go to a hung jury then kill somebody who has the tiniest chance of being innocent.
2006-12-12 14:18:24 · answer #1 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is always a slight chance. That is a BIG difference from a "reasonable doubt". You are asked, as a juror, to find them guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. This means that if you have a reasonable doubt, you must say Not Guilty. If it is only a slight chance, then yes I could indeed sentence someone to death.
2006-12-12 14:13:20 · answer #2 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We do not require absolute proof in our legal system. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". What that means is, if presented with the evidence, could a reasonable person conclude that the person was guilty?
Remember that capital cases are normally separated into two phases - first, a finding of guilt; then subsequently, a decision on a capital sentence, or imprisonment for a term.
If you have sworn to uphold the law, and in a capital case you would also have been asked if you could pass this sentence, then you must abide by the law.
Yes, I would do my duty.
2006-12-12 14:16:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a principled man. If I felt the defendant was innocent, I'd say so and I'd vote for aquittal no matter what the other jurors said. However, I'd never be a juror in a capital case because I am opposed to the death penalty.
2006-12-12 14:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I must believe that the person is guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt" to convict them of capital murder. If I had even the shadow of a doubt, I would not.
If the prosecution was able to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person was guilty of a crime, for which the sentence would be death, I would do it.
Best Wishes,
Sue
2006-12-12 14:14:18 · answer #5 · answered by newbiegranny 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To me for this female i'd provide her 30 yrs with out parole yet make her exhibit an 8x10 image of Caylee's little sweet face on the wall of her detention center cellular. i'd require that. The smoking gun to me is HER vehicle complete of chloroform. massive stages of chloroform were in that vehicle. Chloroform replaced into got here upon contained in the hair shaft and with Caylee. The 80 4 hits on the workstation sealed the deal for me.
2016-11-25 23:59:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. I am completely against the death penalty, so I imagine I would not have been chosen for the jury in a death penalty case to begin with.
2006-12-12 14:17:29 · answer #7 · answered by jenh42002 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. Even if I knew for sure the person was guilty, I couldn't. I don't believe in the death penalty. That's for God to decide.
2006-12-12 14:19:40 · answer #8 · answered by Sephra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋