If you were on a jury, would you be willing to vote for the death penalty?

[watsup]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

 

[Questerr]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

And if you got it wrong and the person executed was later exonerated, meaning the state in essence murdered an innocent person?

 

[Clicker III]

Yes

 

[soylentgreen]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

Then you are letting your emotions guide your decision which makes you no better than a murderer.

An understandable emotion, but an emotion it is and not rational.

 

[mrjurrs]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

No. I would not consider putting any criminal to death until we reach a point in our system of jurisprudence where all criminal punishments are not influenced by class, color, or membership in some community.

 

[Cope]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

Willing? Yes.

Likely? It would be a pretty high bar but I have long thought certain crimes, if guilty, are well deserved of death (and not necessarily the quick, painless one either)

 

[Chillfolks]

Then you are letting your emotions guide your decision which makes you no better than a murderer.

An understandable emotion, but an emotion it is and not rational.

Why do you not consider it rational? His explication seems to be that of a rational person in they would not apply the death penalty to all people but find a certain level of brutality justifiable in it application. Assuming you are opposed to the death penalty how is that opinion not influenced emotion.

 

[Buckeyes85]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

I don't have any problem with the death penalty ethically, but for practical reasons, we should get rid of it. We are a civilized society and someone sentenced to die must be afforded due process/adequate appeals. And that process takes a long time and that is never going to change unless we go backwards as a country. So the condemned is frequently back in the news, stirring the case up, probably angering the surviving family, etc.

Instead, give them life without parole. And close the books. Yes, they can still appeal but they will not have the support of nationwide death penalty opponents falling over themselves to file appeals on their behalf.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Yes... Serial killer and the evidence is 110% proof he's guilty... Child killer and same, 110% sure he's guilty... Yes..

 

[AGENT J]

If you were on a jury, would you be willing to vote for the death penalty?​

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

yes of course id be willing

 

[Callen]

Never.

 

[Gatsby]

No. Capital punishment wastes the legal system's time and money for years, and an alarming number of death row inmates have later been completely exonerated.

If you were on a jury, would you be willing to vote for the death penalty?

The weird thing in the United States is that if you aren't willing to vote for the death penalty, you will never be in that position in the first place (unless you lie during jury selection). Juries in capital cases are handpicked for people who love capital punishment. If you say you're against it as a matter of principle, that is sufficient reason for the prosecutor to dismiss you from the jury.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yes... Serial killer and the evidence is 110% proof he's guilty... Child killer and same, 110% sure he's guilty... Yes..

As a veteran of quite a few jury trials (civil, not criminal) I don't think I ever achieved 110% proof on any issue. Can you help a brother out and tell me what the secret is?

Joking aside, the burden/threshold is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's as it has been, and likely always will be. And it is not up to individual jurors to affix their own personal burden of proof. If someone is unable to accept/follow the law as given to them by the judge, say so during voir dire and be excused.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

As a veteran of quite a few jury trials (civil, not criminal) I don't think I ever achieved 110% proof on any issue. Can you help a brother out and tell me what the secret is?

Joking aside, the burden/threshold is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's as it has been, and likely always will be. And it is not up to individual jurors to affix their own personal burden of proof. If someone is unable to accept/follow the law as given to them by the judge, say so during voir dire and be excused.

I've been on both... Civil and Criminal..

On those Jury's there wasn't 110%...i agree with you...

I'm thinking of a Ted Bundy serial killer... That was 110% that he was guilty.. I had no problem with his death penalty...

 

[Cope]

I've been on both... Civil and Criminal..

On those Jury's there wasn't 110%...i agree with you...

I'm thinking of a Ted Bundy serial killer... That was 110% that he was guilty.. I had no problem with his death penalty...

In cases like that, the DP process doesn't need to be exhaustive. Take them out back of the courthouse and shoot them in the head.

 

[j brown's body]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

No and would be dismissed as a prospective juror. Which is a shame because I am very non-judgmental.

 

[venice_ca]

No.

 

[Cordelier]

No. I think Capital Punishment, as it is treated today, is a violation of the 8th Amendment. It has always been a cruel punishment... but the extraordinary means taken in imposing the sentence these days, also make it an unusual one.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Never

 

[Gateman_Wen]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

No.

 

[mike2810]

Yes. when proven beyond any doubt.

I do not support having someone sit on death row for years and years due to appeals.

 

[Sweden]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

In Sweden we have neither the death penalty nor juries. So as far as I'm concerned this is what is known as an academic question. Here is a question for you: would you be willing to be an executioner?

 

[Sweden]

Yes... Serial killer and the evidence is 110% proof he's guilty... Child killer and same, 110% sure he's guilty... Yes..

110%? You are clearly irrational and should not serve on a jury.

 

[KingLeo]

Would would depend on the evidence and the crime.
It is warranted in select cases? Yes.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

.....if the crime was heinous enough? I would. I have noted many crimes so heinous that I would be willing to vote for the death penalty if that was a choice.

I would rather not. I wish we had a better alternative. I believe that there is something mentally wrong with people who commit such crimes to warrant a death penalty. I think we would be better served locking them away for life and trying to figure out why they did what they did. Only by understanding a problem can we eventually find the solution. It could be a simple fix that we have yet to discover and understand. Plus there is a chance for recourse if we are wrong in the finding of guilt.