Yes, because the attorneys have to pick the jury for both phases of the trial. If someone cannot consider the full range of punishment, from the minimum to the maximum, he or she is disqualified from jury service. We give hypotheticals to help jurors see that given fact scenarios might call for different punishments, from the lowest to the highest. But the jury is given the range of punishment at that point only because the attorneys and the court have to determine whether these jurors can follow the law on punishment, should the case get that far and the defendant be found guilty. Once the jury selection process is over, the range of punishment isn't mentioned at all during the actual trial until guilt is found. BTW, I probably wouldn't be able to serve on the jury you mentioned, because I would have a very hard time giving as few as 5 years to a child rapist, under any circumstances.
Although I am a bankruptcy attorney and not a criminal law practitioner, I am familiar with the jury selection process. I posted that as a response to the assertion that one cannot consider the range of punishment when deciding guilt. If a juror knows the range of punishment, regardless of the reason for such knowledge, they know it and cannot change that when deciding guilt. I was excused quickly based on my answer to that question. The defense attorney asked me what if the kid was 13, looked 17, and gave consent. I told him that if a 13 year old turns the defendant on, that probably isn't going to get better on its own.
I'm pretty sure I knew that you were an attorney but I'd forgotten. Either way, you're right. I should have said the jury shouldn't consider the range of punishment when deciding guilt, because legally they aren't permitted to consider it... obviously, in practice, sometimes they consider it anyway. I like your answer and agree with it. That's a big problem with picking juries for those type of cases, you exclude alot of reasonable people because they can't consider what is probably an unreasonable punishment, given the nature of the act.
No it's another red herring, similar to the "I don't feel sorry for the criminals" hogwash. It's not one or the other, as both of the aforementioned idiotic retorts imply.
I don't believe in hell and I think that is a stupid saying. I do not know anything about the R Kelly case. Even if I did, pointing out on case doesn't make your statement just as if I made one case doesn't make mine.
We actually argued for 2 days about it. But, there were 10 other people on the jury and I was eventually convinced to change my position on some reasoned arguments by another juror. The DaDa juror did have a contingent of about 3 or 4 people who followed his lead, though. This juror was a self-made Mexican immigrant. The case was a lawsuit against a Mexican who had essentially bankrupted the company he had worked for in his attempt to start his own company. And this Mexican juror said right from the beginning that this case was just white people trying to keep a Mexican from suceeding and that there was no way he was going to allow white people to stop this Mexican. He probably thought I was a cog in the white conspiracy; we didn't get along. But, he had much the same attitude as DaDakota about his job as a juror. The judge told us were to decide the facts of the case and she would decide the law. They asked us things like "Did he have a fiduciary duty to the company?" And, my Mexican juror thought they were just trying to paint us into a corner to get the decision they wanted to hear and he was going to cut through the BS and say what he needed to say to see happen what he thought needed to happen (as if his opinion was the only one that mattered). There is a common attitude in America (understandably) that the jury is responsible for making decisions about what happens to people on trial. There is a lack of appreciation for the role judges are supposed to have in interpreting the law. I think there is a place for civil disobedience from jurors when the courts are corrupt -- disallowing courts from committing gross injustices. I don't think it should be done lightly, and I don't think the lawsuit I sat for or even the Joe Horn case is the place for it.
Sheesh. That would have made me hopping mad. I don't think I could have gone along with someone like that. EDIT: I believe that is prejudgement, and grounds for juror misconduct allegations.
Yeah, but like I said, I wasn't going to rat him out. It was kind of like the Stockholm Syndrome or something. I didn't like him but the 12 of us were a team of sorts and I didn't like outsiders meddling in our business. To be on topic, posters keep saying DaDakota would never make it on a jury, but I don't think that's true at all. I think most juries have at least one person who holds the same philosophy and who makes it through jury selection just fine. I think the lawyers for the Joe Horn case will probably be especially careful about picking people in this regard since there seems to be high public sentiment for ignoring the law (whichever way it does lean) and doing what's "right" (whichever way that leans).
I would listen to the case and make a good decision, all I am saying is my personal biases would have a major effect on my judgement in a case like this.... I am sorry these guys died, but I have a hard time blaming a guy helping out a neighbor.....even though it was in the back. DD
So why don't we give the death penalty to all thefts over $2,000? That's essentially what you're saying you'd do. There was no reason for those men to DIE. Go to jail, yes. DIE? No.
I hear ya, I understand your position. I think that the guys that took the risk to rob the place deserve whatever outcome they got.....and they got the worst one possible. But ulitmately the decision they made to break into a house, steal from that person, was theirs and theirs alone..... They paid the ultimate price. Maybe more people will think twice about it because of Joe Horn.... DD
Ok, so you don't think criminals would reconsider if they knew there was a chance that a Joe Horn was living next door? Maybe only one person will reconsider because of this, but that is a good thing. DD
Assume someone you know and are close to starts running with the wrong crowd. On a lark they break into someone's house and grab a TV. They run out of the house and are leaving and a concerned neighbor shoots them in the back. You're O.K. with that?
If my friend broke into someone's house and was shot running away with their property, I would mourn my friend and lament his stupidity. As for the guy who shot him, I would feel the same as I do about Joe Horn, on the fence, but leaning towards the Horn camp. DD
Same with niece, nephew, son, daughter? No matter how many times you may say, my kid will never do that, in 10-15 years, you never know what may happen.
There is almost no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. Similar argument would apply here. But the more important point is that, by your own logic, one could just as easily argue that criminals will now reconsider running, and just shoot anybody they see in case he/she is a "joe horn".
And here is a true life example. The other day I rode my bike, parked and locked it. My crummy lock malfunctioned and I was unable to unlock it (side note - never by a Schwinn branded cable combo lock - I managed to get my wife's lock to malfunction as well). My wife rode her bike home and brought me a hacksaw. I hacksawed through the lock. For all anyone knew, I was stealing that bike. Do I deserve to be shot in the back?
