Would you consent to being on a jury that will decide whether someone will live or die?

[lifeisbeautiful]

They don’t but if you said you would not vote for a DP sentence under any circumstances, you’d be removed from the jury pool anyway.

I don’t see abortion and the DP as being equally grevious evils, and neither does the Church, and I do think that there are times when the DP is a suitable choice. This is consistent with Catholic teaching, so I think I could sit on that type of jury.

See, but I would not say I wouldn’t vote for DP under any circumstances (although I would use the Church criteria as my criteria, which means I believe the need for DP is rare, and that could get me booted), and I don’t see abortion and DP as being equally grievous, I never said that. It seemed like you said you would make your choice based on the law (I could have misinterpreted your statement)

JackieMom:

Yes, I could. I wouldn’t want to - but if called I could do it and return a sentence per what our law calls for. There are so many appeals after a DP case, including an automatic appeal, I don’t think I would have a problem making that choice if it were the appropriate one (per state law.).

and I am saying that the Church does give us guidelines and it could happen that those guidelines are different from the ones presented by the law. If the ones presented by the law were contrary to moral law, we would have to stick with moral law. The Church does not simply say “in some cases DP is ok” without going into a little more detail.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

But, like I said previously,

lifeisbeautiful:

I don’t know if any state has any laws that would force a Catholic jury member to go against his/her faith to sentence someone to death in circumstances where they feel they should not receive this punishment… it doesn’t seem like it to me, but I could be wrong.

 

[catholictiger]

I don’t think the jury determines the punishment only if a man is innocent or guilty. If it was my public duty to serve on a jury of a man who good get the death penalty I would do it. Plus the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn the DP or support it. There is nothing wrong with being on a jury who could convict a man of a crime that would give him the DP.

 

[SMHW]

I am not sure that I could get out of serving because of that, having been called to duty 3x they don’t give much room for asking to get out. But, I would certainly make it clear when I was interviewed that I would never vote for the death penalty… I am presuming one attorney would want me and one wouldn’t.

I think the jury panel selection process will weed out a lot of people who are strongly anti-death penalty.

But even if not, the penalty decision is separate from the determination of whether or not the suspect is guilty. I would have no problem saying that Ihe suspect was guilty if that is what the evidence supported (beyond a reasonable doubt, yada, yada, yada.)

---

The OP did not ask us to elaborate on our views of the death penalty—
—but I happen to believe that death is the just penalty for murder (as is stated in the Old Testament). However I believe that Jesus gave us permission (as opposed to the obligation) to be merciful so as to give the guilty time and opportunity to repent.

I don’t think we should take such a privilege lightly.

 

[maryjk]

Yes I would serve.

In fact, I have served on a Capital Case. Sequestered and all.

 

[Fairwinds]

…“I know and respect that, your honor, but I have to assume that the State has a reasonable reason to bring this case to trial. That automatically predisposes my to the belief that their is some level of doubt about the defendants innocence. In cases of violent crime I believe it is safest to assume guilt to keep violent criminals from skipping because the defense can sow seeds of doubt.” The judge then asked both councils if they had an objection to dismissing me before I could “further taint the jury.”…

that’s a truly astonishing thing to say. its about as unAmerican, backward and wrong as anything I’ve heard.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I don’t think the jury determines the punishment only if a man is innocent or guilty. If it was my public duty to serve on a jury of a man who good get the death penalty I would do it. Plus the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn the DP or support it. There is nothing wrong with being on a jury who could convict a man of a crime that would give him the DP.

In Texas the jury does decide the punishment. It depends upon the state.

 

[JackieMom]

See, but I would not say I wouldn’t vote for DP under any circumstances (although I would use the Church criteria as my criteria, and that could get me booted), and I don’t see abortion and DP as being equally grievous, I never said that. It seemed like you said you would make your choice based on the law (I could have misinterpreted your statement)

and I am saying that the Church does give us guidelines and it could happen that those guidelines are different from the ones presented by the law. If the ones presented by the law were contrary to moral law, we would have to stick with moral law. The Church does not simply say “in some cases DP is ok” without going into a little more detail.

But, like I said previously,

Yeah. I guess for me this is the hardest thing to accept about Church teaching. If someone brutally murdered my child, my husband, my sister… I’d for sure want them to die and I’d be happy to do it with my bare hands. I would have a hard time denying a grieving and destroyed family the same thing, if they wanted it.

Having said that, the Church’s teaching would inform my decision. I am just not a “no death penalty, ever” kind of person. Many murderers kill, maim and rape other inmates in prison. It’s commonplace. I’m not sure we can ever say that a convicted murderer will never kill again as long as he is alive.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I would be honest with the lawyers in the up-front interviews.
Often, if the prosecution is pushing for the death penalty they want a jury who would be okay with issuing that punishment… so honesty should often eliminate this issue up-front.
And, regardless of whether you are selected or not, you can still consent to saying “guilty”, but “not for death”… no one can tie your hands into saying something you don’t want to say.

I believe that would cause a mistrial. Here, the jury has to be unanimous about a guilty verdict, and then the punishment phase begins, and that must also be unanimous or it is a “hung” jury.

The voir dire questions caused a lot of people to get out of serving. I thought to myself, “Well they certainly know how to get themselves dismissed,” but I didn’t, I answered honestly and I was picked. I had a very high number and before the voir dire process, several people told me without a doubt, I would not have to serve. Shows what they knew.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Yeah. I guess for me this is the hardest thing to accept about Church teaching. If someone brutally murdered my child, my husband, my sister… I’d for sure want them to die and I’d be happy to do it with my bare hands. I would have a hard time denying a grieving and destroyed family the same thing, if they wanted it.

Believe me, I understand. Even with the kidnappings recently, where the girls are still alive, I would wish harm upon the aggressor… yet the Church does teach us otherwise, that death penalty is not a form of revenge. I am thankful for the fact that the Church does give us some guidelines (and actually the law doesn’t allow us to go and seek revenge a la eye for an eye either). If I didn’t have the Church to help me see what is correct, I can definitely see me wanting to go for the aggressor directly with my bare hands if he harmed my children or family (like the Boston bomber or the Ohio animal), but the Church does not teach DP is a form of revenge, which is what a lot of people want it to be.

 

[KrazyKat]

Yes, I would serve.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m not sure I go back and forth on the death penalty. In reality though I think if you’re called to Jury duty you don’t have a choice you have to serve. I guess I could be wrong but that’s how I always understood it.

You do, it’s called a jury SUMMONS for a reason, but out of any group of possible jurors, many will be dismissed. I can’t remember how many our group started with, but you should have seen all the hands going up once people realized it was going to be a murder trial. They sussed out what to say to get dismissed. I could not lie, and there were no “outs” for me, so even though I was #70-something in the pool, I got picked.

But yes, it is our CIVIC DUTY to serve on juries. Otherwise we have no justice system at all.

 

[Aggie414]

I have sat through three capital murder trials in which the death penalty was sought – two were given the death penalty and one was given life without parole (I’m a court reporter so it’s part of my job). I don’t know how other states do it, but I could do it in Texas. In Texas you answer two questions (or three depending on circumstances). The way you answer questions determines whether the defendant is sentenced to life without parole or death – and the jury knows the effect of their answers.

I will say that in the three cases I’ve sat on, that the two death penalties were very well-deserved. In one particular case it was like sitting in the courtroom with pure evil. The man that got life without parole, I accept the jury’s decision; but I believe it was the wrong one. In that particular case the defendant was evil and sadistic, but that’s our system.

Just as an aside: And for those who say prisons can be close to escape proof: Right before we tried our capital murder case, they were trying another capital murder case where an inmate IN PRISON FOR MURDER escaped and killed a correctional officer attempting to stop their escape. Don’t think it doesn’t happen.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

Just as an aside: And for those who say prisons can be close to escape proof: Right before we tried our capital murder case, they were trying another capital murder case where an inmate IN PRISON FOR MURDER escaped and killed a correctional officer attempting to stop their escape. Don’t think it doesn’t happen.

escape proof is a red herring or strawman for the anti-DP people. the problem with some kinds of prisoners isn’t that they can escape, but that they run street gangs from inside prison.

 

[JackieMom]

I have sat through three capital murder trials in which the death penalty was sought – two were given the death penalty and one was given life without parole (I’m a court reporter so it’s part of my job). I don’t know how other states do it, but I could do it in Texas. In Texas you answer two questions (or three depending on circumstances). The way you answer questions determines whether the defendant is sentenced to life without parole or death – and the jury knows the effect of their answers.

I will say that in the three cases I’ve sat on, that the two death penalties were very well-deserved. In one particular case it was like sitting in the courtroom with pure evil. The man that got life without parole, I accept the jury’s decision; but I believe it was the wrong one. In that particular case the defendant was evil and sadistic, but that’s our system.

Just as an aside: And for those who say prisons can be close to escape proof: Right before we tried our capital murder case, they were trying another capital murder case where an inmate IN PRISON FOR MURDER escaped and killed a correctional officer attempting to stop their escape. Don’t think it doesn’t happen.

Yeah - I mean once someone has proven that they can and will commit premeditated murder it’s pretty hard to ensure that they will never so it again. Inmate on inmate and inmate on guard violence is super common. Unless we put people in a pit, throw food down and never let them have access to other humans, there is no way to keep the people near them very safe.

 

[Cojuanco]

I just read a news article about the Jodi Arias trial. I haven’t been following the story, but reading the article prompted the question. As a Catholic, would you consent to being on a jury that will decide whether someone will live or die? Personally, I’d have a lot of reservations about it.

Yes. But my ambivalence to the death penalty would likely get me disqualified in voir dire.

 

[Cojuanco]

I don’t think the jury determines the punishment only if a man is innocent or guilty. If it was my public duty to serve on a jury of a man who good get the death penalty I would do it. Plus the Catholic Church doesn’t condemn the DP or support it. There is nothing wrong with being on a jury who could convict a man of a crime that would give him the DP.

Actually, there is a penalty phase after the guilty verdict, mandated by our Supreme Court.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Yeah - I mean once someone has proven that they can and will commit premeditated murder it’s pretty hard to ensure that they will never so it again. Inmate on inmate and inmate on guard violence is super common. Unless we put people in a pit, throw food down and never let them have access to other humans, there is no way to keep the people near them very safe.

I’m curious, but then would this be an argument in favor of death penalty for everyone who is proven guilty of premeditated murder? Since we know they are all capable of doing it? I am aware of the possibility of violence within prison, along with the possibility of people inside prison having negative influence on the outside world, but would this be reason to kill everyone who has shown to be capable of premeditated murder, since any one of them could do it again? Or would it be reason to continue to work on safety in the prison system? There are many people that do participate in premeditated murder, that may never do it again. What percentage of inmates that are in prison for premeditated murder actually go on to murder someone in prison (or escape from prison and become a threat again)? Is it worth it to kill everyone in order to prevent those cases? If a jury finds that it is clear that they will continue to be a threat to society from prison, then it is in line with the Church to sentence with the DP… But is this really that common, that certainty? In the Catechism we are told

the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent”.

If so, is it moral to kill just in case? I am willing to bet that in all the murders in prison, or caused because of someone in prison, there is at least one that occurred with an inmate that was not convicted for premeditated murder. So should the DP be used on drug crime related prisoners as well, since there are plenty of murders out there related to drugs, and it may go on in prison? How about anyone affiliated with a gang regardless of their crime? From what I have seen, many attacks in prison are gang related. I don’t know if those made for TV reality shows are accurate, but they do show people in prison for “small” crimes that end up attacking other people because of gang rivalries. Where do we draw the line?

 

[Fairwinds]

I’m curious, but then would this be an argument in favor of death penalty for everyone who is proven guilty of premeditated murder? Since we know they are all capable of doing it? I am aware of the possibility of violence within prison, along with the possibility of people inside prison having negative influence on the outside world, but would this be reason to kill everyone who has shown to be capable of premeditated murder, since any one of them could do it again? Or would it be reason to continue to work on safety in the prison system? There are many people that do participate in premeditated murder, that may never do it again. What percentage of inmates that are in prison for premeditated murder actually go on to murder someone in prison (or escape from prison and become a threat again)? Is it worth it to kill everyone in order to prevent those cases? If a jury finds that it is clear that they will continue to be a threat to society from prison, then it is in line with the Church to sentence with the DP… But is this really that common, that certainty? In the Catechism we are told the cases are rare. If not, is it moral to kill just in case?

I’d impose the DP on senior leaders of a narcotics gang or cartels, or terrorist leaders, as these are the ones who, from inside max security prisons, control gang activities on the outside (murders, rapes, assaults, narco distribution), or, in the case of the terrorist Abdel-Rahman, for instructing other terrorists resulting in the deaths of numerous people in Egypt. there are constitutional barriers to treating them like the man in the iron mask, so the problem is basically not solvable.

the anti-DPers rarely and by that I mean almost never address problematic convicts like this, except by more hand wave solutions.

 

[JackieMom]

I’d impose the DP on senior leaders of a narcotics gang or cartels, or terrorist leaders, as these are the ones who, from inside max security prisons, control gang activities on the outside (murders, rapes, assaults, narco distribution), or, in the case of the terrorist Abdel-Rahman, for instructing other terrorists resulting in the deaths of numerous people in Egypt. there are constitutional barriers to treating them like the man in the iron mask, so the problem is basically not solvable.

the anti-DPers rarely and by that I mean almost never address problematic convicts like this, except by more hand wave solutions.

Agree. As well as anyone who celebrates their kill/s or vows more violence. I think very few murder cases are even up for the DP. Prison safety can’t really be improved without violating the so-called human rights of inmates (i.e. not allowing any human contact.). What we could improve is the paychological testing that determines someone’s odds of reoffending within the prison system.

 

[Fairwinds]

Agree. As well as anyone who celebrates their kill/s or vows more violence. I think very few murder cases are even up for the DP. Prison safety can’t really be improved without violating the so-called human rights of inmates (i.e. not allowing any human contact.). What we could improve is the paychological testing that determines someone’s odds of reoffending within the prison system.

I’m all for that kind thoughtful reform.