Saying the quiet part out loud
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (57)
sorted by:
In order to get the death penalty, you still have to be convicted of a crime that qualifies for the death penalty by a unanimous jury.
I see no reason why a convicted criminal of a violent crime by unanimous jury deserves the right to another unanimous jury before being put to death. Giving them a sentencing jury at all seems generous since they have already been convicted by one.
The conviction should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and execution "beyond all doubt".
There's cases where you're sure they did it from the evidence presented, but still the possibility that of crime lab lie/mistake or some new exculpatory evidence showing up later. Other cases where there's not even possibility of new evidence or mistakes.
A supermajority to execute where some jurors have doubts is a lower standard than the conviction where no jurors have doubts and it should be a higher standard.
That's not true. Because a prerequisite of that supermajority is a unanimous jury that the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 unanimous jury + 1 supermajority > just 1 unanimous jury
That is an impossible standard.
It's not math. They don't add together. It's the same evaluation of guilt, different question of what punishment is warranted.
For example, three people who are convinced of guilt with possibility of future exoneration and nine people who are absolutely convinced. The three may vote guilty, but would not vote to execute. If they vote guilty then they've effectively voted for execution under a supermajority scheme.
They'd have to game-theory vote not-guilty even despite believing in the guilt in order to not vote for execution, lowering their evaluation of guilt to less than it should be because of a standard for execution that is lower than of guilt.
"Impossible" is not a mathematical impossibility. In law there's often the implicit "if you're not a moron or an aspie".
These people should not vote guilty, even in the current system. If they do, then they are not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sure, but they know that. Which only adds to my previous statement that they shouldn't vote guilty if they aren't sure he's guilty. Voting guilty relying on future exoneration if further evidence comes out is not how juries should work. Hopefully this law forces jurors deciding innocent or guilty to vote more appropriately, knowing that there may not be a possibility of future exoneration.