Do jurors who recommend death owe a debt to the executed's family if he's proven innocent too late?

Question

Or do they owe nothing because they acted on the premise of sincere belief in his guilt of the crime for which he was convicted and, therefore, his deservance of death? Or because judges can choose not to follow the sentence recommendation if not the only option.

I am specifically referring to the sentence recommendation, not the conviction when asking about the ethics of making the exucution recommendation.

Answer 1

No, the jurors have no liability in performing their civic duty. Now the jurisdiction that failed to enter exculpatory evidence, if any was available would have some culpability. Death sentences are usually used in heinous crimes and in most cases there is little doubt to guilt after the evidence is heard. That is why our system requires 12 people to agree unanimously in a persons guilt or acquittal. If all 12 are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they all done their duty. If even one thinks there is a plausible alternate scenario, then the jury is not unanimous in their verdict and a mistrial is ordered. After conviction, the condemned person has at least 5 years of incarceration to make appeals and for additional evidence to be located. Has there been people executed that were innocent? ... probably, and in those instances you usually find there were some wrongdoings by the prosecution, the defense or the court, and yes, they should have to pay a punitive penalty to the family, but I think you'll find there are a lot more people that deserve the death penalty that get off than the other way around and that should be what scares the crap out of you.

Answer 2

Many people still seem to think that it's a good idea, regardless of miscarriages of justice (which most people aren't aware of). There are three possible reasons for judicial punishment: reform, revenge and deterrence. The fact that governments don't seem to consider those in any kind of logical way when they decide what penalty is appropriate is certainly one reason for inconsistent sentencing. As regards the death penalty, reform clearly doesn't come into it as the prisoner ends up dead. Deterrence is a questionable reason as it doesn't seem to deter. Murder seems to carry on at the same rate whether the death penalty is in force or not. Albert Pierrepoint, the UK's last chief executioner up to abolition in 1965, concluded after a life in which he executed more than 600 people by hanging that he was against the death penalty because it isn't an effective deterrent. So many of those he executed committed murder "in the heat of the moment". In his own words, "I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off." People might use deterrence as a reason for the death penalty but the facts don't support it. That brings us on to the third reason: revenge. The only possible reason why the death penalty is still supported is a primitive desire for revenge, and the fact that the bible supports it. The USA is far more religious than any other country in the western civilised world, and is the only one that still uses the death penalty. I cannot believe the two aren't linked.

Answer 3

They are simply required to weigh the evidence and decide on whether it is guilty or not guilty. The evidence would have to be strong to convict and even stronger to recommend the death penalty. Therefore so long as they carry out that duty honestly and truthfully there should be no comeback on them.

If someone is later shown to be not guilty then there must have been a problem with a false witness, perjury or something like that. Therefore everyone in court is nothing to do with it!

Some say there should be no death penalty because an innocent man may die. BUT - if an innocent man dies that is one person. Sadly there are many cases where persons have been found not guilty and released or guilty but given a lesser sentence where upon they go on to kill again.

The death penalty is a hard question with no right answer but one that civilised society has to address repeatedly.

Answer 4

I wouldn't think they'd owe anything. After all, they are basing their verdict on the evidence. What if the defense team does an inadequate job bring up the evidence that would get a "Not Guilty" verdict? Or what if , unbeknownst to everyone at trial time, someone incriminated the defendant by tampering with some evidence. Hopefully if the defendant is truly innocent it will come out during the appellate process. But there are many situations in which it is feasible for well-meaning jurors to base their decision on the evidence in front of them, but to get the verdict wrong.

Answer 5

Interesting ethical question. I would say as long as the trial was done in a fair manner that they acted on the premise of a sincere belief as you say.
Now if there was questionable circumstances around the trial and evidence etc.. then I definitely would think they owe a debt to them and to society as well if there was a wrongful conviction etc. if that makes sense.

Answer 6

Jurors are like attorneys and judges. They have no civil liability when they are acting in their authority as a juror.

I personally believe that prosecuting attorneys and judges should be held accountable for allowing innocent people to be convicted as should social workers who have the power to remove children from families. They should be criminally liable for those acts if their conduct led to innocent people being hurt or imprisoned or bankrupted.

Answer 7

They don't owe them the time of day. They were seated on a jury in an American courtroom. I find it incredulous that anyone on death row is innocent. If they were innocent the state owes the perp money for being locked up. I wonder if the average person on death row led such an innocent life before doing an act that ended someones life?

Answer 8

You'd be better to look into the cops, all attorneys, DA, witnesses involved. If there are enough cases like this brought into the public view the laws might be changed. Putting innocent people behind bars happens everyday. Cops with grudges, DA's who withhold evidence, absolutely incompetent defense attorneys and public offenders, judges who knowingly convict innocent people, witnesses who lie or are prepared by the DA so their stories coincide, jurors who know nothing and are pissed about this interruption of their lives, and many other factors lead to this problem.

Answer 9

Jurors owe nobody anything for the verdict they reach. Jurors make their decision on the evidence that is presented them. There is quite a bit that goes on in the court room and in chambers that the jury is not even privy to.

Answer 10

Jurors can only decide by the information given. Most times Judges go along with what they decide. It is up to the defense attorneys to to their absolute best to present a case that is favorable to the defendant.