The Jury Speaks Thread

[lil_buddy]

I didn't follow it, but all the posts I've read here agree that he did it and that the sentence was correct. All I know is that the suspicion was that he dropped her off a boat that he owned and that her body turned up in the area he was believed to have taken her based on evidence (marina records maybe? and his own testimony) and that his girlfriend was for real and that he lied alot about various things. There's no dispute that the deceased was his wife and that she was hugely pregnant with their own son when she died.

I know he didn't admit killing her, but was anyone dubious about the evidence that he did? I haven't seen anyone here defending him, but I've only read bits and pieces.

"The only piece of forensic evidence identified was a single hair, thought to have been Laci's, found in a pair of pliers from Peterson's boat."

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sydni]

I don't think this is a death penalty worthy case because of the circumstances. A killing in the context of a dysfunctional intimate relationship with no financial or other non-relationship-specific motive. Unlikely to be repeated. There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less. There are others who have walked completely. Am I "defending the likes of Jodi" and am I "no better than her" because I think the death penalty isn't warranted? The obvious answer is no. I haven't killed anyone. Therefore I'm per se not "as bad as Jodi."

All I have to say is .. that ... if this case does not warrant the DP, then I can't imagine why there even is the option. This case deserves the most severe punishment possible, due to the premeditated, especially cruel, heinous, evil "factors". I just can't imagine (don`t want to) receiving a more horrible death. I wonder if it was one of your loved ones who died in this way (at the hands of an evil psychopathic narcissist) - if you would feel the same way.

I respect your opinion and the right to express it ... but I STRONGLY disagree. This convict deserves the ultimate punishment (DP). IMO :twocents:

 

[Mysteeri]

She is capable of premeditated murder, extreme violence and is a pathological liar. And apparently she has borderline personality disorder which means she has difficulty in dealing with rejection. How would she not be likely to harm someone? I don`t think it matters if the context of the murder was a "dysfunctional relationship" as she would be likely to face such relationships, and rejection, again.

 

[Karmady]

All I have to say is .. that ... if this case does not warrant the DP, then I can't imagine why there even is the option. This case deserves the most severe punishment possible, due to the premeditated, especially cruel, heinous, evil "factors". I just can't imagine (don`t want to) receiving a more horrible death. I wonder if it was one of your loved ones who died in this way (at the hands of an evil psychopathic narcissist) - if you would feel the same way.

Yes. I'm not vengeful so it wouldn't matter if this were my family member. I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but it won't bring my family member back. It's up to the justice system to decide. My peace would be totally apart from that process.

 

[Karmady]

"The only piece of forensic evidence identified was a single hair, thought to have been Laci's, found in a pair of pliers from Peterson's boat."

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I reiterate, I don't know the details of the case but, from what I've read here, every single poster is perfectly fine with the DP for him based on whatever "evidence" there was. If a single hair was the only forensic evidence, how did everyone come to the conclusion that he needs to die?

 

[Sydni]

I reiterate, I don't know the details of the case but, from what I've read here, every single poster is perfectly fine with the DP for him based on whatever "evidence" there was. If a single hair was the only forensic evidence, how did everyone come to the conclusion that he needs to die?

There was a ton of circumstantial evidence (all of the Amber Frey telephone conversations, the cement anchors made in his warehouse, etc). Most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence as there is no video or DNA usually (these days, especially) ... so, I am wondering if you just don't believe in the DP ... or ... you don't think a "circumstantial" case holds weight with you.

You probably think the CA verdict was the correct one. I don't. They at least had some options to convict her of ... at least, of second degree child neglect or involuntary manslaughter (I think). I am still soooooo angry at the jury. Oh well, she has (and will have) a miserable life ahead of her. Jodi Arias ... she can rot. What a despicable waste of skin. Too bad she didn't just:bang: after she tortured and mutilated poor Travis. You are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot "get" why you believe this (JA) is NOT a DP warranted case.

AND ... I'm Canadian ... we don't have the DP here. I really don't have any problems with that. Not really a DP person, but I still believe that CMJA should get the ultimate/maximum sentence. If that's DP ... fine ... she deserves it.!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[screecher]

About the arbitrariness, I think sentencing someone to death for things that other people do, or worse, and get off with life, a lighter sentence or no sentence at all is far more arbitrary. I'm not talking about her going free. I'm talking about LWOP (or its functional equivalent under AZ law) or death. Not opening the door and sending her home. Consequences for crimes, especially life v. death shouldn't be fortuitous, imo.

Regardless, I don't think it's pretty bad to think she's not likely to harm someone else. I don't and I feel fine about it. We can agree to disagree about that.

BBM

Pray tell, explain what she was going to do with a newly purchased GUN (hidden under her hood) and KNIVES (hidden in a book) both packed in her 'getaway' car.

 

[Love Never Fails]

A professional juror could still make judgement mistakes and would judge according to his/her life experiences.
But, they would know the law and how it works and not make the mistake that the foreman made (about letting the judge make the decision about the verdict and was so surprised there was a mistrial instead of a decision).

Where is everyone? I'm the only one talking?? :seeya:

Hi again,
Please tell me who would make up a professional jury. Is it lawyers? Just professionals from any field? Hope it would not be lawyers, as no one would ever be convicted. Nor psychologists or liberal thinking folks. So how would it work? Thanks.

 

[Love Never Fails]

BBM

Pray tell, explain what she was going to do with a newly purchased GUN (hidden under her hood) and KNIVES (hidden in a book) both packed in her 'getaway' car.

MOO....she will kill again if she ever is set free. For someone to kill like that, she liked it and thought she could get away with it.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Yes. I'm not vengeful so it wouldn't matter if this were my family member. I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but it won't bring my family member back. It's up to the justice system to decide. My peace would be totally apart from that process.

Karmady, be real with us. Neither you nor I have ever experienced that kind of pain of having a loved one savagely murdered. So you cannot honestly say you could make peace with it.

 

[YESorNO]

Hi again,
Please tell me who would make up a professional jury. Is it lawyers? Just professionals from any field? Hope it would not be lawyers, as no one would ever be convicted. Nor psychologists or liberal thinking folks. So how would it work? Thanks.

I believe we should have professional juries, with basic knowledge of the law (and perhaps even a full legal education). They don't have to be lawyers. And their education would be an ongoing thing, with classes every year or so. They would be salaried.

In addition to basic knowledge of the law, professional juries should also be trained in the latest empirical evidence that would help them best assess the factual evidence in a case. Jurors should be trained in the studies about the reliability of eyewitness testimony (which isn’t very reliable) so they can weigh it appropriately with other evidence. They should be trained about which cues and aspects of a witness’s demeanor are likely to indicate whether he or she is telling the truth, as currently jurors use their own intuitions in this regard, which may or may not be correct. And so on. :seeya:

Here are some interesting articles to read about professional juries:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-dimond/professional-jurors-has-t_b_867839.html

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/02/jury-duty-no-more.html

And one more that I previously posted about juries in general:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/files/2012/05/LeibFromPublisher.pdf

 

[Karmady]

BBM

Pray tell, explain what she was going to do with a newly purchased GUN (hidden under her hood) and KNIVES (hidden in a book) both packed in her 'getaway' car.

How would I or you know? And there were no knives hidden in a book. They were in a box with books. Kind of like my kitchen knives might be in the same box as my cookbooks. There's a reason why you're not told the details.

Since she had time and motive to kill lots of people (like the Hughes' as some have speculated), but didn't, I don't draw any conclusions about the gun (could be reasonable self defense if one were fleeing to Mexico, say) or the knives (see my kitchen packing box example). jmo

 

[Karmady]

Karmady, be real with us. Neither you nor I have ever experienced that kind of pain of having a loved one savagely murdered. So you cannot honestly say you could make peace with it.

I am so real it's ridiculous. There is no choice but peace with it, or a lifetime of agony. It's done.

 

[getReal]

I believe we should have professional juries, with basic knowledge of the law (and perhaps even a full legal education). They don't have to be lawyers. And their education would be an ongoing thing, with classes every year or so. They would be salaried...

It sounds like you are basically advocating for just "trial by judge", which already exists. You have the option of trial by judge or trial by a jury of your peers. In Jodi's case, that should have been a jury populated by obsessive psychopathic killers. That would make for a different presentation of the facts, wouldn't it?
:hills:

 

[Breezy1]

I don't think this is a death penalty worthy case because of the circumstances. A killing in the context of a dysfunctional intimate relationship with no financial or other non-relationship-specific motive. Unlikely to be repeated. There are many others who've committed similar or far worse crimes who aren't on death row and who are facing life with the possibility of parole or even less. There are others who have walked completely. Am I "defending the likes of Jodi" and am I "no better than her" because I think the death penalty isn't warranted? The obvious answer is no. I haven't killed anyone. Therefore I'm per se not "as bad as Jodi."

Funny, the judge in the case of Shirley Turner thought that exact same thing after she committed premediated murder of her ex boyfriend and allowed her out on bail saying she wasnt a threat to society. She then went on to try to frame another man whom had rejected her after learning about the murder, for her suicide in which she killed her and her son (from her ex boyfriend Andrew that she murdered). Shirley Turner also displayed BPD symptoms throughout her life. In fact Turner also liked to taunt the Bagsby family from behind bars about their only son's death when they had custody of the child. Strange.. Some women are nuts, and actually would reoffend contrary to popular belief. And by Jodi's comment about if society is at risk makes it clear she is not sorry and would in fact kill again.

 

[YESorNO]

It sounds like you are basically advocating for just "trial by judge", which already exists. You have the option of trial by judge or trial by a jury of your peers. In Jodi's case, that should have been a jury populated by obsessive psychopathic killers. That would make for a different presentation of the facts, wouldn't it?
:hills:

People can be educated extensively in law and still be, so called, "peers"; they don't have to be judges or lawyers. Peer means "one with equal standing with each other" (according to my Mirriam-Webster dictionary). "Equal standing" is very subjective IMO.
A jury of psychopaths probably wouldn't think JA did anything wrong because they would "understand" where JA was coming from. WE are the ones who don't understand the psycho population :floorlaugh:. WE have the problem- not them. :floorlaugh: