A moral dilemma for death penalty opponents

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

It is standard practice (the legal term is voir dire) to ask all prospective jurors in a case where the death penalty may be sought if they would be willing to impose such a penalty.  If the answer is no, they are disqualified.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, that's a pretty useful way of separating the rational people from the sadists, I suppose.  Fairly disturbing at the same time, of course, given the opportunity the sadists will then find themselves in.

In any case, let's continue this scenario as a hypothetical.  Let's say that the option to recuse oneself for this reason is denied.

Should one then ignore Jury Instructions?

http://www.myazbar.org/SecComm/Committees/CRJI/CRJI-PDF/StandardCriminal.pdf

[CARLHAYDEN]

In addition to what Carl says, the SC has also seen fit to declare it unconstitutional, in death penalty cases only, to take sentencing out of the jury's hands. It is therefore entirely unproblematic to agree to a guilty verdict but hold out for life without parole. (Yeah, so it's a hypothetical. I'm dealing with it.)

If forced to either let a murderer go or conspire in the murder of a helpless individual, I would of course feel morally bound to the bad-but-not-monstrously-evil choice. Not guilty.

Thanks Lewis.

I was waiting for Joe to deal with one problem at a time.

I was going to make the bifurcated trial matter my next issue.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's a hypothetical moral dilemma, CARL.  Deal with it.

So, hypothetically, is it moral to state that one will abide by the Jury Instructions from the judge, and then subsequently ignore them because of a result one might dislike?

I understand complex situations are a little difficult for you but, real life is like that.

Oh, and I didn't even mention that common practice is for a bifurcated trial, with a guilt phase and a separate penalty phase.

Given your continued failure to grasp the terms outlined in this hypothetical scenario, I have no choice but to ignore any further attempts by you to shit on my thread.  Good day, sir.

The rest of you don't need to keep reiterating that this scenario could never happen, as I am well aware of that.

You never answered my question about the morality of ignoring a judge's jury instructions!

Why?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You never answered my question about the morality of ignoring a judge's jury instructions!

Why?

Simple.  Those are not the instructions the judge gave the jury in this scenario.  Happy?

So, your hypothetical judge refuses to follow standard jury instructions?

Boy, your hypotheticals get stranger and stranger, and more detached from reality.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yeah, and I want to take you up on that.

Let's say that the murderer openly says that he will kill again if released. What do you do?

'kay, now our hypothetical is getting way irrational.

This hypothetical was never really that rational.

And even if somebody happened to get on the jury and was opposed to the death penalty, and the murderer was clearly guilty, and the juror said "not guildty" on principle, it'd just lead to a hung jury.

A very good point.

I was going to get to that one after resolving other matters, but, Joe being Joe refused to answer my question about the "morality" of ignoring Jury Instructions, by denying such jury instructions (which I linked him to and which are standard)) would be given.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually, your 'scenario' presumes a simplicity which does not exit in real life.

First, a homocide may be justifiable, excuseable or criminal.

Second, criminal homocide may be murder or manslaughter,

Third, murder may be first or second degree (the death penalty is commonly reserved for first degree).

Generally, even when first degree murder is found, the penalty phase of a trail provides for evidence of a number of factors.

My point was that the system has dealt with the issue in a number of ways (voir dire, jury instructions, bifurcated trials, etc.) which obviate your 'scenario,'