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? Because then the criminal defendant loses the protection of the other 11 jurors. That's the way the criminal justice system works in general - the incentive is always to make sure that nobody is wrongly convicted (or, in this case, sentenced to death) even at the expense of letting a few guilty people go free. To err is human - the system is designed to make sure that those errors do not result in wrongful convictions or death sentences. Juries in criminal trials "vote", but not on a majority rule system. Think of it more like a series of 12 quality-control inspectors. Each one takes a look at the product (in this case, evidence proving that the defendant deserves the death penalty) and decides if that evidence measures up. If one juror decides that the prosecution failed to present enough quality evidence, then its a no-go on the death penalty.
Coma, I think Haven is referring to the fact that Gore won the popular vote, while Bush won the electoral college. Which I wish they would do away with by the way. DaDakota
coma: Jesus, what planet are you from? From a strict majority stand-point, Gore got 500k more votes nation-wide. I'm not addressing whether or not the electoral college system is justified. But for God's sakes... you need to be better informed than that.
haven, Yes Gore won the popular vote by 540,520 votes. Trust me, I know this. The American voters did not decide the fate of Andrea Yates. Twelve jurors did. A majority of these twelve jurors could've called for the death penalty.
In Texas for a person to be put to death, the jury must answer two questions affirmatively: 1. Did the person deliberately kill the victim(s)? Obviously this question was answered Yes. 2. Is the person a continuing threat to society? Obviously this question was answered No. I would think that the jurors did not see that Yates would be a threat to kill anyone else. My wife was on a death penalty case around 10 years ago. They had to have a unanimous decision on both those questions in order for the State to implement the death penalty. It took them a number of hours to answer question 2. They eventually answered it Yes and the guy has now been on death row for almost 11 years. One other thin. During the deliberations they were forbidden (for what it's worth), to consider the fact that he would eventually be up for parole if given a life sentence. They were not supposed to factor that into their decision.
Coma, Then my argument is easily extrapolated. We do not live in a country where "majority rule" is a definitive principle. As for your arguments about the Founding of the US.... read Locke, for fun sometime. Then read the memoirs of the founders. They feared the masses. And they believed that the individual had to be protected from the masses. Part of this, was simply because they were rich, white landowners. Have you ever studied constitutional law? Many property protections emerged in the Consitution and BoR because they didn't want land to be easily stripped from the individual simply because the mob desired it. They were elitists... and wanted to protect their current positions. Most theories on freedom of speech eventually revert to the point that the majority is not necessarily correct. It is necessary to protect some bad speech in order to have "good" minority speech. Hence ,it's all protected
Speaking of being informed, here are some interesting facts. In 2000, 88 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. In China, the limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 1,000 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher. In Saudi Arabia, 123 executions were reported, but the total may have been much higher. Eighty-five people were executed in the USA. At least 75 executions were carried out in Iran. In addition, hundreds of executions were reported in Iraq but many of them may have been extrajudicial. http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrar...6aab003d14a8/46e4de9db9087e35802568810050f05f!OpenDocument Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrar...6aab003d14a8/daa2b602299dded0802568810050f6b1!OpenDocument http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/index?openview
coma, haven is basing his founding fathers argument on statements such as James Madison when he stated that the primary goal of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Also, John Jay said something like, "the people who own the country should govern it." There is a pretty solid record of it...anyway, this is a side issue.
5 people have already died. Why add another? In order for her to be eligible for the death penalty, two factors need to be considered: 1) What is the propensity for recidivism? Will she do it again? No. This was certainly a "once-in-a-lifetime" crime, and is unlikely to be repeated. 2) What are the mitigating factors? If there are any of consequence, then another "No". She was/is undoubtedly mentally ill. Even the prosecution didn't argue that - only the severity is in question. Another mitigating factor: she has absolutely no prior violent criminal history. That must be taken under judgment. Put your revenge desires aside for now. The jury made the right *legal* decision. Anhd IMHO, the right moral decision as well - 5 people have already died, and two (+) have had their lives utterly destroyed. As much as I would like to see a deterrance effect put upon families like these (the husband, while a victim, deserves some blame), it is unrealistic to think that it will be so. Don't add to the tragedy just so you can feel better about yourself. The jury made the right decision in this case.
sounds like the same arguement that got Dahmer off. When middle class or above white folx kill folx. . .they crazy when black or poor folx kill someone. .. they morally bankrupt and need a little killing theyself Rocket River just my observation BTW . . ain't the unibomber still alive???
The Unabomber entered a plea bargain and accepted life in prison rather than go to trial and risk the death penalty.
I kinda figured that she would get life but I think she should die like a dirty homeless animal...............BIOT*H
No question, but that doesn't make us landing in the top 5 any better. When you realize that 88 percent of the executions in the "civilized" world happen in only 4 countries and 22 percent in the rest of the world, it makes you realize that while the death penalty may be accepted by a majority of Americans, it is not by a majority of humans.
