I am a public defender, and I have a case going to trial next week (even though I’m a lowly PD, I will be sober and awake during the entire trial). If my client gets convicted, the mandatory sentence will be life in prison. It is not a murder or rape case.
In Georgia, the judge does not let the jury know what the sentence requirements are unless it is a death penalty case. I have been successful in the past in getting the judge to tell the jury if there is a mndatory minimum sentece in a case, as there is here.
Assume that you believe that a life sentence is too harsh for what my client is charged with. If you were inclined to vote guilty, would the fact that you thought the sentence was inappropriate make you change your vote?
He is also charged with some other offenses that do not carry mandatory minumums. If you were inclined to vote guilty on the mandatory life charge, would you be more likely to acquit on the life charge if you could convict him of something else?
Yes. I’ve seen too many of these cases where some young person gets sentenced to 10-20-30 years in prison for dealing drugs, when in fact they were only pawns of the prosecution and/or the real people behind the drug trade. I believe that the jury should be fully informed concerning mandatory sentencing, if a lessor charge will, in the juries opinion, satisfy the public good, then they should have that option.
This whole mandatory minimum and lack of any meaningful rehabilitation efforts is a blight on society in the long run. We spend tons of money to build and operate prisons just to warehouse people and almost totally ignore any efforts at rehabilitation. It’s short sided and self defeating.
Well, I’m a bleeding heart, whinging long-haired (figuratively) lefty, so take my views with a mouthful of salt. But yes, I would certainly factor the senetene into my decision, but I doubt it would completely swing my point of view- on the other hand, if there weren’t much in it either way, I’d be more inclined to grant benefit of the doubt in this case.
If he’s a rough customer, say he’s got priors for assault, I’d just go with the harsher penalty and figure he’s a menace to let out anyway.
If he’s just a daring dope who tried to rob a bank with a water pistol, then I’d be inclined to let him go one rung down to whatever’s one rung down.
Very interesting questions - great post ! (sneaky, but then, heck, you’re a lawyer !
This may explain why I get bounced out during jury selection - I tend to see the trial as “did the person commit the crime” period. If they did, the sentencing, the punishment, is not something for me to consider. In a civil case, the jury takes part in deciding the penalties (damages), if any. But to me, in a criminal case, I should only be concerned with determining “guilty” or “not guilty”. And not “guilty of these because the penalties are along the lines of what I think is appropriate” or “not guilty because I think the penalties are too harsh, even though they did commit the crimes”. It seems to me that it is odd that they jury is informed of what the punishment could be at all. Again, it would seem to me that they should only be concerned with whether the person accussed committed the crime, and not what the punishment should be - that should be left to the judge/laws on the books.
Just for your information, on the one jury I did serve on, I was “Henry Fonda”. Although I don’t know that I would take credit for persuading the other jurors to change their votes, I was very clear that I wasn’t going to change mine - and we did end up unanimously “not quilty”.
Depends on the situation; but if it was obvious that it was some poor schlub who just got the short end of the stick (say, a woman facing the “three strikes” rule who had two bad check convictions and then her boyfriend was storing drugs in her basement), I might indulge in a little jury nullification. As far as the argument that juries should only consider guilt and leave sentences to the courts, I quote C.S. Lewis in an essay about crime and punishment:
“And when (say, in eighteenth-century England) actual punishments conflicted too violently with the moral sense of the community, juries refused to convict and reform was finally brought about.”
Well it’s hard to tell not knowing what kind of crime it was. Was it violent or non-violent? If non-violent, was it a property crime or drug crime? If violent, was it attempted murder, armed robbery, or violence resulting in serious injury to the victim? Has the guy been conviced before of similar serious offenses? I would take all of that into consideration…
Now if it were a drug crime, I would be inclined to vote not guilty on the charge that would garner a life-sentence, then vote guilty on the lesser offenses. No drug charge is worth life in prison.
As far as if it were a violent offense. I would take into consideration how serious it was, the condition of the victim, and the likelyhood of him being a danger to society.
it would depend upon the case. But if your question is “would the sentencing alone affect whether I voted guilty”? Then I"d have to say no. Other factors, such as the defendant, his/her history, the crime (what crime that is not murder or rape carries a life sentence?) and many other factors.
It may be wrong as far as the court is concerned, but all of those factors, if I knew the sentence was a life sentence, would affect my choice.
I was on a jury where we knew the kid was drunk and deserved the DUI, but we caught the trooper in so many lies, the few truths he might have told were nullified. He did a lousy job proving his case, that said, I would definitely looks at the whole record as a guide for deserving say, a life sentence. Until child molesters get mandatory life sentences, I think it’s a damn shame that someone can get LESS jail time for molesting a child than for buying a small bag of pot. (Null and void if the accused is within 2 years of the victim and they were dating, I hate that an 18yr old can be nailed as a child molester if the “victim” is 17)
I think it would be a moral dilemma for any person being put in the position of putting a non-violent, first-time offender in jail for life. Justice is supposed to be fair. Depending on the jury, I would think a younger skewed jury would be less likely to convict a drug charge to a life sentence. Especially if given the option for nailing them to a lesser charge. (i.e. drug charge A is mandatory life, drug charge B is variable, say 10 years) I would probably tend to go with the lower charge.
The list of items I found for Georgia that mandate life sentences, don’t really sway me to allow someone to walk around free again, I’m not sure how complete the list is, but my google fu shows these: murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated child molestation.
I can’t imagine how any of those charges can be “oopsies” of any kind. Sorry for rambling, but my vote is: minor to moderate drug charge: I’d look for a lesser charge. Any violent crime, depends on the history, but most likely, I’d nail 'em for it.
I’ve heard rumors that spitting on someone could be construed as attempted murder or somesuch, I guess the theory is they could have AIDS. Want to fight my ingorance on this one?
Simply on sentence length alone? Not a chance. However, the jury’s job is to ensure that justice is done, and I have no problem with voting Not Guilty if what the defendant did was (in my eyes) the Right Thing.
as i recall you have to take an oath to be on a jury. so i would have to follow the law. even if it was stupid. i’m one of those people who have to do what i said i’d do. besides, i wouldn’t know the sentence, would i?
I’m not a Lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but in NZ the police used to say that the defendent was “Known to the police” as a euphemism for “He’s got priors/he’s a ne’er-do-well”, whereas a defendant who was “Not known to the police” meant “First offence/nothing serious”…
I think the severity of the sentence has a lot to do with how I’d vote. For instance, I think the 3-strike rule is ridiculous (California, I think). I could not, in good conscience, send a guy to jail for life for boosting a couple video tapes. I don’t care what his other crimes were, particularly if he’s served his time for those crimes.
If it was some silly three strike rule or a half-witted zero tolerance policy, I would definitely take that into consideration and hang the jury if I have to.
Sounds a little extreme. A simple lethal injection should suffice!
For me, it would definately depend on the circumstances. I’m inclined to want to judge based on “did he actually commit the deed or not?”, but could not in good faith condemn someone to a punishment that I felt was too extreme.
My view put more simply: if the mandatory punishment would be ridiculously unfair, then I vote to acquit. If the judge has ANY leeway at all, I vote to convict.
I agree 100% with cormac262. It’s not the job of the jury to second guess the legislature. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, then he should be found guilty. Period.
I probably should mention that I also have a problem with plea bargains for the same reason.
I know, I’m too much of an idealist and this is not an ideal world, but still…
I’m with BobLibDem on this one. I would always go by my conscience rather than the law. Unlike FBG, I feel that it is (almost) always my duty as a citizen to second-guess my legislature. I trust them about as much as they trust me.
