NEWS-girl killed by mechanic in FL.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
are you confusing emotional reaction of the average person toward HEARING about the crime to judgments brought about by emotion? Because sure EVERYONE has an emotional reaction to any given crime depending on the particular situation. Thats no mystery. But you are NOT supposed to make a legal judgment (as a juror) based on how angry you are about the details of the crime. Nevermind the severity of the sentence, judging on emotion can lead to the increased liklihood of an innocent person being found guilty to begin with (because you are furious about the nature of the crime itself and it clouds your judgment as to examining ALL the evidence and whether the person on trial really is guilty of it). In fact most courts would throw out any juror who openly admited that they planned on making a decision based on their anger or their disgust or whatever. thats why they try to keep them insulated from the media to begin with.

Judgement for guilty or innocent is not determined by emotion, but the penalty for the crime is. That's my position here.

It is our sense of morality and ethics that determine whether something is good or bad.... and therefore a crime. But it is how we feel about the crime that determines the punishment. No one can argue that murder deserves a harsher punishment than shoplifting. It is because of our emotional response to taking a life over taking a pair of jeans that makes that punishment harsher.

they are? there are murder distinctions for age of the victim?

yes, there are.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Judgement for guilty or innocent is not determined by emotion, but the penalty for the crime is. That's my position here.

It is our sense of morality and ethics that determine whether something is good or bad.... and therefore a crime. But it is how we feel about the crime that determines the punishment.

I thought the jurors determined only guilt or innocence and it was up to the judge to determine sentence. and in the past few years they have actually limited the ability the judge has to determine the sentence. a lot of crimes are sentenced through a predetermined formula which some judges hate.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I thought the jurors determined only guilt or innocence and it was up to the judge to determine sentence. and in the past few years they have actually limited the ability the judge has to determine the sentence. a lot of crimes are sentenced through a predetermined formula which some judges hate.

yes and no.

There are 2 phases. The first phase determines whether or not the person accused is guilty, according to the facts presented by both sides.

The second phase is the sentencing phase. A case that would involve the death penalty has to be determined by a panel of 12 jurors (the defendant's peers, so to speak), not by one judge. It has to be unanimous. If one juror refuses to issue the death penalty, then the death penalty can not be issued as a punishment for the crime.

After the person has been convicted and the death penalty has been issued as the punishment, the guilty has the right to a certain number of appeals. I'm not sure of the number, or the amount of time... but people sit on death row for years and years before convicted. There is ample time to restate their case in a court of law with new evidence.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No- because it's pretty clear that when people post here - most of the time they are pointing the finger at the US.

We have the death penaly - it the decision of the people of America. You guys can worry about YOUR countries, instead of always trying to look over our fence and judge us. When you live here - you have a say in our way of life.

I would be grateful to you if you would tell me if that was a reply to my post. It doesn't seem to refer to what I said. I didn't criticise the US in any way whatsoever or even refer to it - the death penalty is an issue here in Britain too, and I'm opposed to it. So I am worrying about my own country. It doesn't interest me what you do in the US, except out of general intellectual curiosity, and I wouldn't dream of telling you what to do (unlike, just let me mention, some Americans did in the fox-hunting thread).

You misinterpreted my post (though I don't expect you to admit it ), and if you want to criticise Europe's attitude to the US as a whole, I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth to do it.

Sorry everyone, I'll get back on topic now in the proper thread

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Beor

No, its warming up though


[edit] still cant figure out that quote thing... cross posts rock!

(oh well, man, life goes on)

All you did was leave the brackett off of the end of your first quote. I will fix it.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
There actually are no true consistencies. ... One person who technically commits the same crime as another may be given a harsher punishment than another. The victim or the way in which the crime was actually commited plays a part in the punishment. Does that make sense?

Of course; that's what I'm driving at, and I see that IR has beat me to it. That's why judges have independence: so they can factor in all the different variables. Juries decide whether the person is guilty

But there is usually some sort of minimum and maximum, and judges will always consider carefully how their sentence sits according to precedent, again to ensure consistency.

There's a bit of a stramash here at the moment because Maxine Carr has applied for parole. She was convicted of perverting the course of justice because her boyfriend killed two young girls and she lied to give him an alibi. At no point did she know that he'd done it, and may well be just as horrified as the the rest of us.

She's been denied parole; should she serve a longer jail term than she otherwise would (assuming that the judge has factored in all the relevant details in the sentence) just because it's a high profile, emotive case?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Ruinel
The second phase is the sentencing phase. A case that would involve the death penalty has to be determined by a panel of 12 jurors (the defendant's peers, so to speak), not by one judge.

but... the case is a capital case from the start isnt it? thats how it is in Virginia. can you try someone find them guilty and THEN so suprise! we are going to kill you! I thought it had to be determined up front that this is going to be a capital trial.

[Hemel]

A case that would involve the death penalty has to be determined by a panel of 12 jurors (the defendant's peers, so to speak), not by one judge. It has to be unanimous. If one juror refuses to issue the death penalty, then the death penalty can not be issued as a punishment for the crime.

Can someone please explain this to me? Just because on the face of it it looks like if the death sentence is passed could depend on the make-up of the jury - thus exactly the same crime could theoretically result in different punishments if tried before different juries.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
but... the case is a capital case from the start isnt it? thats how it is in Virginia. can you try someone find them guilty and THEN so suprise! we are going to kill you! I thought it had to be determined up front that this is going to be a capital trial.

It has to be determined upfront what sort of case it is. That is true. If the prosecution wants to try for the death penalty, then that doesn't mean that the person who is found guilty by a jury, will also receive the death penalty by a jury. It has to be unanimous.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel
Can someone please explain this to me? Just because on the face of it it looks like if the death sentence is passed could depend on the make-up of the jury - thus exactly the same crime could theoretically result in different punishments if tried before different juries.

The make up of the jury is determined by both sides... the prosecution and the defense.

[Hemel]

Okay, so is it in these cases the jury that finally says what they recommend as a penalty? And what happens if you have an objector to the death penalty in the jury ... this presumably means that it won't be recommended. But is it possible that another jury, without an objector, hearing exactly the same case, could recommend?