I just feel bad for the jury. I mean, they have to deal with not being in the majority. That's just harsh...
She certainly deserved it, but did anyone here really think she would recieve the death penalty? I'm not suprised... x34
I'm not THERE WAS NO WAY IN HELL MS LILLY WHITEBREAD AMERICA WAS GONNA GET THE NEEDLE That is reserved for poor and minority folx Rocket River one can dream though . . . . . Poor and Minority . .you get the needle Middle class to rich . .. you get sympathy
Well, that's clever but not on target. The majority factor cited by DaDakota dealt with the issue of elective office and legislative matters regarding the legality of a Death Penalty. I haven't heard details, but I think it would take a unanimous decision for her to receive Death, wouldn't it? It could have been 11 for Death and 1 against. Anybody know?
I don't know how the votes went, but yes, it needs to be a unanimous decision. Unfortunate. Truly unfortunate.
You know what, I think she should get the death penalty, but a Jury of her peers felt otherwise, and I am not gonna whine about it. They heard the facts of the case and made a decision. Whether or not I would have made a different decision is irrelevant. However, I am still in the majority that favors the death penalty. Nice try Dylan. DaDakota
I wonder if it is life without parole? The jury did the only thing sensible given the law and facts as I understand it from reading the newspapers. In TX even if a person has command hallucinations that they can't resist ordering them to kill someone, they can't have an insanity defense, if they know it is wrong--even if they can't control the impulses. That may very well be the case here. The jury knew she had no ability to resist the commands or impulses, but she knew it was wrong to kill the kids. Hence, guilty because no insanity defense permissible , but no aggravating circumstances, no premeditated etc. so they don't give the death penalty. As has been much discussed, in most states not guilty by reason of insanity, due to how the insanity defense is defined in most other states.
I do agree that it should not be unanimous, a 10-2 count should be required, that would stop the lone lunatic from swaying the decision. DaDakota
Since when did the majority rule in America? Certainly not in the last election. Incidentally, I wonder what the majority thinks about napster . In fact, the Bill of Rights was written, not only to protect the states, but also to prevent mob rule. The Founding Fathers... whom you seem to revere... hated the idea of the vulgar masses governing politics. They installed as many checks against this as possible. Some of those checks are gone now. But, nevertheless, protections of speech, religion, etc... are clear checks to majority rule. Republicans often criticize the Clinton government for being governed by polls. This is one of the few areas in which I'd actually agree with them. Our current President, though I detest his policies, is correct in asserting that leadership is necessary from the top. In a pure democracy, "majority rules." But in a Republic, the rights of the individual are protected against this. Now, it remains an argue of debate as to whether the death penalty is a tool of society that violates the rights of the individual. But to use "majority rule" as an argument is foolish (and hypocritical for most conservatives).
They haven't released the numbers of the vote -- but given that it took them only 40 minutes to reach a decision, I doubt there was a lone anti-death penalty holdout.
Simple. Minority vote has the ability to override a majority vote. There's a reason that they have it that way. The death penalty is pretty much the ultimate punishment, and it's about as permanent as you can get. Therefore, there's a serious added incentive to make sure that the right call is made. By the way, sometimes the majority is wrong.
Living proof right here folks Society frowns on giving women the death penalty. 40 years for killing 5 kids. 5 innocent children who will not have the chance to ever live life again. The jurors dissapoint me. Convict of her murder and then sentence her to life in prison with parole. Appeal the sentence and fry the b****! and her husband needs to be kicked in the teeth. just seeing him up on the podium stating what he said with no remorse for his 5 DEAD KIDS laying in a coffin while his Wife lives and breaths, I hope yates you get a cellmate with a nice broomstick handle with your name on it. We now must pay room and board as tax payers for the rest of this monsters life. so I hope each waking day she is alive she see's the visions of her dead children. There I vented.
The difference is, Yates is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree she is screwed up in the head, but she knew what she was doing somewhat. Here is a truely ****ed up woman ... http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/1923562.html
Then change the process. You call upon twelve citizens to hand this women her fate. If the majority of them decide she deserves the death penalty, only to be overridden by the minority, then the process doesn't work. The incentive to make sure the right call is made seems to only work one way. Why not just pick a juror randomly, and go with what he or she decides?
haven, You must of some inside information about last election's final numbers that prove Bush didn't win. Please share. The Bills of Rights were an amendment to the first draft of the Constitution. Originally, the Constitution declared what the gov't could do, but not what it couldn't do. The states wouldn't ratify it without a Bill of Rights. Also, the Anti-Federalists, who opposed strong centralized gov't, wouldn't support the Constitution without one. Essentially, the Bill of Rights was created to protect our "natural rights." I don't remember anything about trying to prevent mob rule. They were just preventing against the things the British were doing; warrantless searches, freedom of religion, etc. The "majority rules" argument in this particular case is not foolish. It's as logically sound as 1's and 0's. Ask twelve ppl for a decision and go with what the minority votes. That is what is foolish.