Now first of all, let me say I am morally against the death penalty, at least for right now. My main concern is that we selectively put murderers to death for the same offenses. For instance Charles Manson and his "group" are still alive although convicted of a heinous muder of several innocents. To me, there is little difference between him ordering the deaths of others and Hitler/Himmler doing the same in a much larger scale. IMO it is not fair to sentence one murderer to death and allow another to stay alive for an identical or similar crime. It would be much fairer to simply make all heinous crimes automatically a "death" certainty IMO. But that opinion has evolved over time and was not always my stance.
But this ruling (Hicks Park) just doesn't sit well with me. The execution style killing of two young, inocent people "evidently" for fun. The jury however spoke and gave him life in prison WO parole.
Now I've been a juror in a murder trial (before I decided I was against the DP) and I pretty much know how this kind of thing works in the jury room and all good juries take extreme precaution to make the final "sentence" the right one. But that is also why I began questioning the death penalty.
After our verdict (life wo parole) and trial, it is common practice for the judge to meet with the jury, thank them for their service and ask them if they have any questions. Our jury asked several pertinent questions and I decided to ask one question that I probably should have discussed in the jury room to find out the answer to. The question was - "Is it guaranteed that this murderer will never, ever be released from prison?". The judge looked us straight in the eye and said that as long as the convicted man is still alive, there IS a chance.
But my feeling is this. The lawyers on both sides, should be required to ask this question to the jury pool. "If you were to decide on a sentence of death, would you be willing to throw the switch or push the button yourself to end the life of that despicable human being?'
IMO life without parole should be that - not in a dormitory behind a wall. Should all death penalties be certain?
This post was edited on 2/14 12:16 PM by rabidTU
But this ruling (Hicks Park) just doesn't sit well with me. The execution style killing of two young, inocent people "evidently" for fun. The jury however spoke and gave him life in prison WO parole.
Now I've been a juror in a murder trial (before I decided I was against the DP) and I pretty much know how this kind of thing works in the jury room and all good juries take extreme precaution to make the final "sentence" the right one. But that is also why I began questioning the death penalty.
After our verdict (life wo parole) and trial, it is common practice for the judge to meet with the jury, thank them for their service and ask them if they have any questions. Our jury asked several pertinent questions and I decided to ask one question that I probably should have discussed in the jury room to find out the answer to. The question was - "Is it guaranteed that this murderer will never, ever be released from prison?". The judge looked us straight in the eye and said that as long as the convicted man is still alive, there IS a chance.
But my feeling is this. The lawyers on both sides, should be required to ask this question to the jury pool. "If you were to decide on a sentence of death, would you be willing to throw the switch or push the button yourself to end the life of that despicable human being?'
IMO life without parole should be that - not in a dormitory behind a wall. Should all death penalties be certain?
This post was edited on 2/14 12:16 PM by rabidTU
