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

[Fairwinds]

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.

Think about when bail is set. Bail is partially set based on the charges, the presumed danger the person poses in addition to their flight risk. Isn’t it unAmerican to set bail at a million dollars for a suspected killer since we have to presume they are innocent? If every person is presumed innocent then the police should never be able to hold a suspect in custody.

If we had 3 options (guilty, not guilty, not proven) I would be more likely to serve. When a jury feels that the defendant is almost surely guilty, but they get off because of lack of evidence or mishandling of evidence that is a miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately when I first wanted to be a lawyer I learned that legality, morality, and justice have nothing to do with each other. Studying cases where people were executed and later found to be innocent as well as where defendants walked and killed again told me that justice is defined by what you can buy…:

you’re asking questions that, honestly, are junior high level. there’s a constitutional right to bail there’s a constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. the public has an interest in defendants showing up for trial. your knowledge of how bail works or even what its for is juvenile, even wikipedia would have answered that correctly.

what probably happened, after you were discharged, is that defense counsel moved to discharge the panel because of your personal need to rant. I’d have done that in a second. its possible that the judge granted the motion and you wasted the time of dozens of people. you got your 5 minutes of fame and didn’t even know it.

F/

 

[Usige]

you’re asking questions that, honestly, are junior high level. there’s a constitutional right to bail there’s a constitutional right to the presumption of innocence. the public has an interest in defendants showing up for trial. your knowledge of how bail works or even what its for is juvenile, even wikipedia would have answered that correctly.

I do understand how bail works. What I was saying is if all suspect are presumed innocent then there is no reason to ever hold someone without bail. Bail is set at higher levels (or denied) partially to reduce the chance of presumably dangerous suspects being released and not showing up for their court date. How many people with a 1 million dollar bail make bond as compared to those with a $500 bail? I seem to remember Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were denied bail, so why hold them if they are presumed innocent? Innocent people don’t flee and skip court hearings.

what probably happened, after you were discharged, is that defense counsel moved to discharge the panel because of your personal need to rant. I’d have done that in a second. its possible that the judge granted the motion and you wasted the time of dozens of people. you got your 5 minutes of fame and didn’t even know it.

It wasn’t a rant. The judge asked a question and I answered him honestly. I thought that is what people were supposed to do in court; be honest. If you had someone like me and I said nothing you could have had a mistrial and wasted another 3 or 4 days of trial when my predilections became known. How would you suggest someone with my strong convictions precede? Would it be better to ask to see council and the judge privately? Perhaps ask the bailiff to see them because I believe open questioning might unduly influence the other potential jurors? I am serious and not asking a rhetorical question. I will not change how I view the application of the law just because of a theoretical assumption that everyone is good, sweet and innocent.

 

[Caroline723]

I am firmly for the death penalty, a reverse of how I felt years ago. I think that certain other crimes (like the Ohio kidnapping/rape) should have that penalty as well. Ironically, I think the catechism’s description of just cause, would expand the perimeters of the death penalty. How many child killers are registered sex offenders out on probation? Like all of them.

My thinking is that society cannot exist without rules. The violation of rules brings consequences. The violation of especially heinous acts requires a penalty of death. People are free to live outside society. I hear siberia is really nice for a few weeks in the summer.

I think grouping abortion and the death penalty together is detrimental to the pro-life cause. I think a strong distinction needs to be made between innocent life and a person who has chosen to do evil. And the catholic church DOES allow a catholic to dissent on this issue, but does not allow that in regard to abortion.

From a Catholic perspective, the person sentenced to death has been given something he likely never gave his victim: to know the day and time he was going to stand before God. The death penalty doesn’t seem particularly inhumane to me, and look at how many condemned, at the end, seem to have reconciled to God and accepted their penalty. Like a diagnosis of a terminal disease, when you know death is near, you take the purpose of life seriously.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

It’s not a matter of you consenting, but rather a matter of you being selected to be on the jury. In a case like this, the issue of the death penalty would come up when you are interviewed to be on the jury. If you are against the death penalty, and an unbiased opinion is required to be on the jury, you would not be selected to be on the jury in the first place.

 

[rayne89]

I would not.

 

[SaintFrancis333]

I am not God. I will not sit in judgement of someone when awarded the power of life and death.

 

[Fairwinds]

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.

suffer from scruples much?

 

[Fairwinds]

I do understand how bail works. What I was saying is if all suspect are presumed innocent then there is no reason to ever hold someone without bail. Bail is set at higher levels (or denied) partially to reduce the chance of presumably dangerous suspects being released and not showing up for their court date. How many people with a 1 million dollar bail make bond as compared to those with a $500 bail? I seem to remember Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were denied bail, so why hold them if they are presumed innocent? Innocent people don’t flee and skip court hearings…

if you’re asking that question now, you don’t understand bail. I know you don’t understand the constitutional presumption of innocence.

 

[Fairwinds]

I’d vote for death in the instances where DP-eligible convicts or terrorists serving life sentences are proven to have continued to run narco distribution rings and order deaths, rapes, extortion and violence. this has happened with the most violent prison gang leadership and at least on major terrorist convict. you can pretend this doesn’t happen, but it does and its not possible to stop it because of a minimum of rights every convict has, including the right to confidential communications with attorneys.

the CCC doesn’t prohibit the DP in every instance, these are perfect examples.

F/

 

[maryjk]

It’s not a matter of you consenting, but rather a matter of you being selected to be on the jury. In a case like this, the issue of the death penalty would come up when you are interviewed to be on the jury. If you are against the death penalty, and an unbiased opinion is required to be on the jury, you would not be selected to be on the jury in the first place.

This is true.

When I was chosen for the jury, I was asked, up front, by the judge. If you said you couldn’t ever, no matter what, find for the death penalty, you were off of the jury.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Yes. I understand that there is a possibilty to “order” a hit from inside the penitentiary in US. I am happy we don’t have that chance. But we have a moral dilemma here. Can we, or do we have a right to kill someone because he/she may get a word outside the prison walls. If we continue on that road we soon must hang people who may drive under the influence of some intoxicant drug or alchohol to prevent a possible accident. It is a endless path, and all human rights will be taken. (And this is off the topic.)

 

[Fairwinds]

Yes. I understand that there is a possibilty to “order” a hit from inside the penitentiary in US. I am happy we don’t have that chance. But we have a moral dilemma here. Can we, or do we have a right to kill someone because he/she may get a word outside the prison walls. If we continue on that road we soon must hang people who may drive under the influence of some intoxicant drug or alchohol to prevent a possible accident. It is a endless path, and all human rights will be taken. (And this is off the topic.)

its not a possibility, its happens right now. I don’t know who this “we” is, but I and most of the rest of the world can make a distinction between a drunk driver and a prison gang leader running a narcotics ring, or that convicted terrorist who used his attorney to pass orders that resulted in murders and rioting in Egypt. the slippery slope is a lame argument. with some killers like these Ohio creeps, they’re not going to commit crimes on the outside of prison because of the nature of their crime. a narco gang leader will. not “might”, but “will”.

I don’t see why you disagree with the teaching of the CCC here.

 

[Usige]

suffer from scruples much?

Nope. Scruples are not something I expect to pickup from the study of law or talking to lawyers.

Alas, I joined Catholic Answers Forum not Catholic Insults Forum so i must bid you adieu. Here you have had the opportunity to teach, but instead dismiss anything you disagree with and instead turn to insults and attacks of character at every pass. Such a pitty. May fair winds continue to blow your way my friend and keep you from the deadly shoals of anger and hubris.

 

[Lasting_faith]

its not a possibility, its happens right now. I don’t know who this “we” is, but I and most of the rest of the world can make a distinction between a drunk driver and a prison gang leader running a narcotics ring, or that convicted terrorist who used his attorney to pass orders that resulted in murders and rioting in Egypt. the slippery slope is a lame argument. with some killers like these Ohio creeps, they’re not going to commit crimes on the outside of prison because of the nature of their crime. a narco gang leader will. not “might”, but “will”.

I don’t see why you disagree with the teaching of the CCC here.

I am sorry for offending you. I will not participate with this thread anymore, I am new on this forum and I don’t think I have a right to come on strong.

What I don’t apoligize for is that I am a Christian, who follow the CCC and teaching given by The RCC. Death penalty may be well-founded sometimes. (Even if I don’t approve it.) And I can say that there is methods to avert inmates from communicate with the world outside the gaol. But let us give this issue a rest now, at least on my behalf because I understand that US have certain very good reason for thought connected with terrorism, but so have Europe, I would like to add.

 

[kingal86]

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.

I’m intellectually opposed to the death penalty so would have issues with that I guess. I say intellectually, because in some horrific crimes (e.g. Fritzl, the recent Cleveland case) or a serious violent crime against a family member, my baser emotions would be a different matter. I’m also aware that in a Lord of the Flies situation, or back in the Middle Ages, the death penalty may have been necessary (the resources and ability to detain and feed a murderer for life was often lacking back then, and likely would be for a small tribe of people on a desert island).

Since it’s the case that many states (I believe) and certainly the federal system require unanimity among the jury to sentence the person to death, the simple fact of an abolitionist being on the jury would prevent this?

Although I believe a juror is legally meant to be able to be able to pass any penalty the law requires in order to sit on a jury in a capital case, so it’s possible doing what I have said above may constitute perjury of other violations of the law…

Also, am I correct in understanding that although the Magisterium teaches capital punishment is no longer necessary in advanced countries with the resources to imprison people for life, it is an issue Catholics are allowed to disagree on, along with whether certain wars are just or (I presume) Catholics serving in opposing armed forces during a war (e.g. WWII, and it seems likely there were probably baptised Catholic soldiers on the British side of the Falkands War fighting mostly Catholic Argentinians).

I’m sure I’ve seen that somewhere on this site.

 

[kingal86]

Weather I would or not is immaterial. I vehemently oppose the death penalty so would never return a guilty verdict if I knew it was on the table. Because of that and the fact that I believe both sides need to prove guilt or innocence (I don’t assume not guilty in cases of violence) I would have both the defense and prosecution tossing me off a jury quicker than you can say I object.

Don’t think I’d go that far. If I had to choose between someone I was certain was a murderer going free and possibly killing again, and condemning them to death I may end up reluctantly choosing the latter, but wouldn’t feel good about it.

I’d have to be very sure they were guilty though - the “reasonable” part of “reasonable doubt” would be a problem for me in such a hypothetical. Given that when England had the death penalty before 1965 (well it wasn’t abolished for everything until 1998 but was never used), they typically only waited a few months before the execution I’ve heard (compared to years or decades in America often) I dread to think how many innocent people may have been hanged. Also some of those reprieved by the Home Secretary (in an often arbitrary-seeming process) to life only served 10 years before being paroled - there’s a massive difference between a 10 year-term and death!

The fallibility of human justice is one of the major reasons I oppose the death penalty.

 

[kingal86]

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.

Think about when bail is set. Bail is partially set based on the charges, the presumed danger the person poses in addition to their flight risk. Isn’t it unAmerican to set bail at a million dollars for a suspected killer since we have to presume they are innocent? If every person is presumed innocent then the police should never be able to hold a suspect in custody.

If we had 3 options (guilty, not guilty, not proven) …

If I understand correctly Scotland does have “not proven” - those I suppose that taints those acquitted of serious crimes even more than they already are by some. Given the tabloids in Britain, I don’t think you’re the only one to have similar biases really, and I think many have them to some degree but try to overcome them.

With the question about drawing negative inferences from a defendant not testifying, I think I’d find it difficult not to do that.

Indeed if I understand the law over here in England, whilst under the European Convention on Human Rights you have the right to non-incrimination, we have no Fifth Amendment equivalent (or written constitution at all*), and apparently under an Act of Parliament sometimes negative inferences actually can legally be drawn from keeping silent in police interrogations in some circumstances - I’ll admit I haven’t studied that part of the law here sufficiently.

Also don’t understand the point of setting millions of dollars in bail for defendants who aren’t rich in America instead of just denying bail (e.g. that monster in Cleveland), which is what would happen over here in such a case. It sounds like a technicality.

*No First Amendment either merely freedom of speech but with some restrictions - if the Cleveland case had happened here, the British media (and theoretically individuals in some cases, e.g. bloggers. in Britain, though that’s rarely enforced) would be legally constrained over what could be reported about the past of the accused following his being charged or anything else that may be deemed to affect the jury or a fair trial. Rape victims also have the right to anonymity here unless waived - though I imagine might have already been in public domain in a case like this

Then the floodgates open and documentaries come out straight after a verdict, as in the recent manslaughter/arson case by a notorious abusive, deadbeat dad.

 

[Fairwinds]

Nope. Scruples are not something I expect to pickup from the study of law or talking to lawyers.

Alas, I joined Catholic Answers Forum not Catholic Insults Forum so i must bid you adieu. Here you have had the opportunity to teach, but instead dismiss anything you disagree with and instead turn to insults and attacks of character at every pass. Such a pitty. May fair winds continue to blow your way my friend and keep you from the deadly shoals of anger and hubris.

adios. horse/water

 

[Fairwinds]

…
With the question about drawing negative inferences from a defendant not testifying, I think I’d find it difficult not to do that.

in the USofA, its ingrained. criminal defendants don’t testify, there are instructions not to draw inferences, and if the government so much as hints at this, automatic mistrial.

in the civil side, “taking the fifth” can give rise to any inference you’d want to make.

…Also don’t understand the point of setting millions of dollars in bail for defendants who aren’t rich in America instead of just denying bail (e.g. that monster in Cleveland), which is what would happen over here in such a case. It sounds like a technicality.;;;.

the purpose of bail, which is a constitutional right (8th Amendment), is to ensure the defendant returns for trial. people are flight risks depending on a lot of factors, whether they own property, how long they’ve lived in the area, employment, family, whether there’s dirty money behind bail sources. very few people can post a $1,000,000 bail, but family can get together, lien property, come up with cash and buy the bond from a bondsman for maybe 10% of the face value. if the accused runs and the bond is forfeit, the bondsman forecloses.

Bail Reform Act
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/bailact3.pdf/$file/bailact3.pdf

allows for no-bail when the government can prove by the intermediate standard of clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a threat to the community for certain types of crimes: crimes of violence, DP-eligible crimes, certain drug crimes, repeat offenders, crimes involving minors, sex offenders and possession of weapons.

so perhaps the crimes don’t qualify for no-bail.

 

[EasterJoy]

Don’t think I’d go that far. If I had to choose between someone I was certain was a murderer going free and possibly killing again, and condemning them to death I may end up reluctantly choosing the latter, but wouldn’t feel good about it.

I’d have to be very sure they were guilty though - the “reasonable” part of “reasonable doubt” would be a problem for me in such a hypothetical. Given that when England had the death penalty before 1965 (well it wasn’t abolished for everything until 1998 but was never used), they typically only waited a few months before the execution I’ve heard (compared to years or decades in America often) I dread to think how many innocent people may have been hanged. Also some of those reprieved by the Home Secretary (in an often arbitrary-seeming process) to life only served 10 years before being paroled - there’s a massive difference between a 10 year-term and death!

The fallibility of human justice is one of the major reasons I oppose the death penalty.

For someone to get the death penalty, there would have to be no reasonable and humane way to keep them incarcerated such that no one else would be in mortal danger. They were someone that would basically have to be tied down to keep them from killing someone else. An inmate who murdered or made a credible attempt to murder a guard or another inmate while under maximum security would be an example. If I lived in a country where the kind of security that will prevent re-offense while in prison or if the prisons couldn’t be kept secure, that would be another example. The guards and other inmates have the right to protection from murder, too, and you cannot keep someone literally tied down for 30 years.