First, no jury decides someone is innocent. They only decide guilty or not guilty. (Unless there is some extreme situation.)
the particulars vary from state to state. the jury will first decide guilt, then there’s a penalty phase. the jury will know that if it convicts, it will have to decide DP or life. the judge can set aside a DP recommendation, it cannot impose one if the jury decides life. this is a general description.
Can you be not guilty but also not innocent? Aren’t they polar opposites?
there’s a presumption of innocence. either the government overcomes the presumption (guilty) or it doesn’t (not guilty).
In Texas the defendant has the right to choose whether the jury will set his/her punishment or the Judge. In a death penalty eligible case, the jury must assess the punishment – by that I mean, they answer the questions; and the way they answer the questions, dictates the sentence the Judge must impose.
Yes.
It’s not really guilty vs. innocent. It’s “did the state make a strong enough case?” Many times jurors fully believe someone is guilty, but because the case was not made beyond all reasonable doubt, they have to vote “not guilty.”
When I go to Mass on Sunday, the first thing I’m going to do when I kneel is to thank God that you were not impaneled on that jury. The next thing I am going to do is ask for God’s intervention should you ever be summoned again.
Never. In fact, I was on jury duty a few years ago, and was just called to fill out forms for federal jury duty. I told them I didn’t want to do it precisely for this reason,
‘Consenting’ is one thing, and I most certainly wouldn’t in this case. There isn’t a death penalty in our country for some time now, so that’s rather moot, but if given the choice, I wouldn’t want to be part of any team that has to decide on the fate (life and death) of another individual.
I find the idea of killing another human being so abhorrent that I would not be able to give a fair vote if it meant the death penalty.
you’re always free to vote to convict and then vote against the DP.
The courts [or at least not the ones in the US] are not going to force someone to serve on a jury if it would go against their personal beliefs, religion and/or biases. If you’re honest and sincere about it, you’ll get dismissed every time.
Not true. It depends upon the state - the murder jury I served on had 2 deliberation periods. One for the verdict, and one for the sentence.
I wish I could agree with that, but I can’t. There’re gangsters who can order hits from within prison walls; there’re violent criminals who will kill other inmates; there’re serial killers who can still intimidate people they have injured in the past; there’re gangs formed inside prison walls that spread out beyond the walls and wreak havoc on the general population; organized crime dons can train proteges who will do their bidding once they get out. The list goes on.
Not to mention that there are prisoners that were originally sentence to death that had the sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole because the death penalty was made illegal [or even just temporarily illegal] that are put up for parole… Not kidding. It has happened here in my state.
I just heard a story this past week about inmates who get access to smart phones and arrange hits inside and outside of prison. It happens a lot, according to the story.
I’m fine with the unAmerican part. I don’t bleed red, white and blue and I think apple pie is one of the more disgusting things I’ve ever tasted.
I freely admit that I shouldn’t serve on a jury. I do appreciate your continued prayers for monsters like me.
Perhaps, but in some states if there is not a unaimous decision the judge can impanel a new jury for the sentencing phase. If you find someone guilty, but then there is a hung jury about the death penalty it is possible that a new jury will be impaneled that votes for death based on your finding of guilty. For me I would still find myself to blame for that persons death even if I tried to stop the barbarous act during the penalty phase.