So, I’ve been reading the various articlesabout the Tsarnaev trial. Yes, the man’s a bad guy. He murdered innocent people and possibly deserves death himself. With that said, the native residents of the city where the crime was committed - you could justifiably call them his peers - overwhelmingly are against the state executing him for the crime.
So the state is allowed to ask every single potential juror, point blank, if they feel like the death penalty is ok. And they get to kick everyone who says they are against it, picking for the juror pool ones who are willing to vote yes.
This doesn’t sound like a jury of ones peers at all, even remotely. I can understand getting together a jury pool, then kicking the blatantly insane or retarded, and whatever is left, that’s the jurors. But cherry picking out the small fraction of Bostonians who are ok with state sponsored murder?
As one of the possible punishments is the death penalty I’d say it’s a requirement jury be willing to consider it. I don’t think someone who is against imprisoning people should be allowed on a jury either.
I’m against the death penalty. So unfortunately until it is abolished I can’t be considered to sit on a jury for a number of federal crimes.
Do you understand how this is statistically loading the deck, especially when people being anti DP is the majority? It would be like picking a bunch of cards, then getting to throw out any card that’s not of a particular suit.
It could easily be the case that people who are pro DP are statistically more likely than not to send an innocent person to jail. Or vice versa. Etc.
He committed a federal crime. Statistically the country is pro death penalty. Do you think he’d be treated more or less fairly if his request for change of venue was granted?
I think you are speculating to much into what peoples stance on the death penalty actually means. It could be people who believe in the death penalty are more likely to forgive him for his crimes.
If the prosecution plans to go for the death penalty, they want to make sure they’re not getting a jury that would vote to acquit on their beliefs against said issue, rather than on the facts of the case itself. In other words, they want to make sure any jurors haven’t already made up their minds on how to vote. They want those who will wait until they’ve heard the entire case.
I don’t see how it’s such a problem to ask any potential jurors if they would have a problem applying a certain type of punishment if it’s on the table. You want to make sure you have a jury free of any sort of prejudices.
(FWIW, I’m totally against the death penalty and I totally understand why they’re doing this)
I was in the jury pool on a murder case where the death penalty was an option. Whether someone was for or against the death penalty was not the issue - it was if someone was or was not willing to consider it under any circumstances. People against it made it through the first screening, though I expect they did not make it to the final jury.
I agree. A jury member is supposed to be following the law and the evidence not their own personal beliefs. If they decide they can’t put their beliefs aside then they shouldn’t serve.
The death penalty is legal in Massachusetts. Don’t commit capital crimes in states where the death penalty is legal. Pretty simple. If potential jurors aren’t willing to uphold the law, then they shouldn’t be on the jury in that particular state.
If they are passionate enough to be against the death penalty, then they should work towards getting the law changed in their particular state, or move to a non-death penalty state.
But whether they can put their beliefs aside is not the question being asked. It’s being assumed they can’t. Instead, they are stacking the deck with people who are pro-death penalty to make it more likely they will vote for it. You ask anyone pretty much who supports the death penalty, and they’ll say this guy deserves it without looking at any evidence, just as much as asking anyone who doesn’t support it will say no.
They are just eliminating one bias in order to make another bias much stronger.
The real answer is that his defense wants him to die just as much as the prosecution.
No, the death penalty is not legal in Massachusetts. tsarnaev is liable for the death penalty because terrorism is a federal crime, thus Massachusetts law is irrelevant.
No, that’s just standard when it comes to picking a jury. They’ll ALWAYS ask about any pre-judices, or if you could have a problem voting for a certain penalty or if there’s an issue that could bias you towards or against the defendent.
So anyone who supports the death penalty has already made up their mind their mind to convict? :dubious:
Guess what? I’m anti-death penalty, and I think PLENTY of people deserve the death penalty. That being said, I don’t think it should be done, because it’s cruel and unethical, and there’s too much roor error. (There are people I think deserve to thrown to starving wolves. Doesn’t mean we should do it.)
The guy’s an evil bastard, but like anyone else, he still deserves a fair trial. And believe it or not, not everyone who believes in the death penalty is some blood-thirsty goon who’s dying to pull the switch themself.
Notice this quote from the article:
In other words, they don’t want someone who’s like, “YEAH, STRAP HIM IN!!!” Just people who are open-minded to the possibility.
If you want to engage in intelligent discussion, I suggest you work on understanding the definitions of the terms you use. Peers in the legal sense doesn’t mean people who share your opinions, and legal killing is not murder. If you can’t be arsed to use words accurately then I see no point in trying to understand the resulting drivel.
He admitted to killing people yesterday in the trial. But there are many possible crimes involved in killing people, whether he was an equal partner or just under the influence of his older brother.
I’m not seeing that from the article. It says they’re rejecting people from both extremes. So anyone who says “Let’s kill the bastard” is being rejected alongside anyone who says “I wouldn’t impose the death penalty under any circumstances”.
It’s the opposite of stacking the deck. They’re trying to eliminate anyone who’s already decided how they’d vote. They only want jurors who will enter the trial open to all legal options.
Because a trial is a necessary part of due process, even when a criminal admits to their crimes. I haven’t time to explain the US justice system in its entirety, but you are on the right board if you need further explanation of how it works.
Do you have a cite for either of the bolded sentences? Because while you’re probably correct about the stereotypical upper class Boston liberal, there are plenty of Bostonians who don’t meet that definition at all. There may be a slight majority of Bostonians who are anti-death penalty, but I’d hardly call it “overwhelming”.