bbm
When one says they *can* give the death penalty, is it written somewhere that regardless of what THEY, the jurors, (and they're the only ones who count, the ONLY ones) say, which is that they would carefully weigh the evidence and make a decision, that they MUST render a death penalty? Is there a rule that says THEY (not posters, jurors, there is a difference IMO) MUST render the DP, regardless of how THEY viewed the case or evidence?
I thought that's what the penalty phase was for, or else why even bother? From many of the comments here it seems like the death penalty should work as so:
No deliberation needed, you said you "could," but to us that means you MUST.
I for one am glad it doesn't work the way many here seem to think it should. Jurors opinions are the only ones that matter and opinions are personal and therefore unassailable. And the death penalty is mostly an opinion, or else, again, why bother. Give it to everyone.
The ONLY problem I would have with someone who didn't give the death penalty is if they lied to get on the jury just to derail the process. But that hasn't been shown, most likely because it didn't happen.
I see no reason to criticize ANY juror, unless you were in that room and in their minds. There is no "they deserve it" just because one didn't like their verdict, their personality, their clothing or anything else. Nobody deserves this kind of treatment, especailly someone who did their civic duty for 5 months. That kind of criticism is classless to the max, IMO.
artyguy2:
