If you were a jury member in a case where a proven child molester was killed....?

Question

by a family member of the victim, would you vote guilty and send them to jail?

Is this not just cause?

Hey celestial, how does this NOT affect the child for the rest of his/her life?

Answer 1

Probably not. I would cling to any evidence in their defense and call it reasonable doubt.

Answer 2

The only reason a child molester, paedophile, pervert would be out in the world would be because justice wasnt served properly in the first place. The reason why victims or others seek revenge is if justice hasnt been served in the first place.

Whilst vigillante behaviour is not something I promote, if it protected more children where the law often fails then what other options are there?

Paedophiles should not have any rights and its because do gooders scream out for their human rights that they go onto to do it again with no remorse because they get a life of luxery in prison..

As sydney cook once said "once into children, always into children and no child is ever safe and any paedophile that says he can change is lying" and he was a paedophile and child killer.

I know of a man who killed his dad because the system let him down after his dad abused and tortured him for many years. His dad got a minimal sentence and the victim got life.

The law protects paedophiles before it protects children.

That needs to be changed and no one would take it into their own hands if the law done its job properly in the first place.

No I wouldnt have the murderer/victim/family of the victim put in prison. The family suffer too when one of their family members lives have been destroyed and if the victim commited suicide as a result of a paedophile then the family have a right to justice as did the victim but probably didnt get it eh!

Answer 3

I think that I'm allowed to assume that , had the molester been brought to trial and a verdict of guilty, then the family would have, quite rightly, endorsed his or her sentence.
That allowed, then those family members live under the same pattern of law, and are entitled to their "day in court".
If they are guilty of a crime, in that jurisdiction, then they should be treated accordingly.
If the molester had not been brought to justice, I am also allowed to ask if it is right for the individual to take the law into their own hands. I think, on balance, not.
If we allow our laws and systems of process to enact our laws on our behalf, it can't be an "exceptional" system.
Some sort of justification will always be brought forward in a murder trial, and who am I to select levels of degree?
I am there to decide, on the facts, if a murder has been committed. I am not there to let a murderer go free because I sympathise with him/her.
We have to be alert to all of our responsibilities, including those that may be uncomfortable.
Yes. If I am on a jury, and I believe that, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person on trial is guilty of that crime, I would vote guilty.

Answer 4

He/she committed a crime. He/she *is* guilty of killing the child molester. The state is there to deal with offenders of the law, and protect the citizens/discipline them, not the individual. If the state did not, the entire country (world) would be in absolute chaos.

The child molester would of been convicted appropriately, if he/she was still alive. I'm disappointed in the way that people will let emotions come into this.

Answer 5

Yes I would... with a heavy heart. When a person kills another for whatever reason, it's still murder - we can't allow vengence to be an act that has no justice.

You ask a good question. No matter what happens in our lives, we must never forget to act within the law of our land. The child molester also had family that had nothing to do with his/her crime, they suffer too.

Answer 6

I did jury service a few years ago, and you have to base your verdict on the facts, not feelings/emotions.
If there's no doubt the person accused is guilty then you have to find them so, it's not the jury that sends people to jail, its the judge, so in a case like that it's just hoped he'll be lenient.

:-)

Answer 7

To tell you the honest truth, the evidence against the family member would have to be ironclad before I'd convict.

I think a SCINTILLA of a doubt would spell innocence, to me.

However, any prosecuter worth his salt would find out that about me in voir dire and I'd never be put on the jury.

Answer 8

I've served on a jury. When you are sworn in, you take an oath to follow the law, not your feelings. If you value your own word, then you do just that.

Yes, as sad as that case is, if the evidence and the law required a guilty verdict, that would be the verdict I would return.

If we simply put aside the law and make our own rules in jury trials, the system will soon grind to a halt.

Answer 9

Yes, fry the bastard.

Kidding. Honest answer?

Well, I guess I'd have to listen to the case. As much as I would be TEMPTED to do the same thing in the same situation, the law is supposed to be administered by the government. Our society will go down hill fast if too many people do this. We could end up with case where innocent people get killed too.

On the otherhand, might be more likely for me to rule self defense or second degree murder. (Second degree is where you are angry right)

Answer 10

Although I would have sympathy and understanding for that family member, I would think it highly presumptive of them to expect anything other than serving the time for committing the crime. Most people can rationalize, and decide whether doing time would be worth it or not. I may, however, push for a lower "crime of passion" or "heat of the moment" charge and duration.

Answer 11

Yes, I would, because not to, would be re-writing the law, and only the courts have the right to change laws. Sentencing is another matter. If the jury is allowed to decide sentencing, leniency can be applied to special circumstances. If, on the other hand, the judge applies sentencing, then it is out of your hands. You have done your job!