This case is a perfect example of why many oppose the DP. 18 clearly sympathized with the killer, but even he voted for 1st degree murder because the law was specific about what constituted premeditation and because the State proved premed beyond any reasonable doubt. Likewise, the law was crystal clear about what "cruelty" meant, and again, the evidence presented was irrefutable --Travis suffered immensely.
Law governing the penalty phase veers off the cliff into the subjective. Each juror is allowed to decide whether or not the killer's life has "worth" and thus should be spared, gets to use their own moral compass to find , define, and weigh mitigating factors, needs a low burden of proof to justify their view, and given the subjectivity of the process, doesn't in fact have to "prove" their view in any meaningful ways to their fellow jurors.
No wonder that DP cases are never a slam dunk.
Law governing the penalty phase veers off the cliff into the subjective. Each juror is allowed to decide whether or not the killer's life has "worth" and thus should be spared, gets to use their own moral compass to find , define, and weigh mitigating factors, needs a low burden of proof to justify their view, and given the subjectivity of the process, doesn't in fact have to "prove" their view in any meaningful ways to their fellow jurors.
No wonder that DP cases are never a slam dunk.