Americans have the right to bear arms; we don’t.
I sure want to know. I cannot comprehend people whose view of innocence or guilt is absolute. And if the penalty was, IMHO, too draconian, I would vote to acquit.
Here is a case in point. This happened in Saskatchewan, I believe, maybe 15 or 20 years. A man, a farmer, had a 10 year old daughter who was severely retarded and in constant and apparently severe pain. Finally the man could take it no longer and killed her. By CO poisoning in his garage. The first trial ended in a hung jury. At the second trial, the jury asked the judge what the minimum sentence was. The judge refused to say. Finally, the convicted. Had I been on the jury and known what the minimum was (life with possible parole after 10 years, which is what happened) I would have either voted to acquit or voted guilty to a lesser offense (if that was possible). Instead they voted guilty but recommended that he spend no more than a year in the clink. The judge actually sentenced him to that, despite the law, but on appeal the minimum sentence was imposed. A travesty of justice IMHO. It brings the law into disrepute.
How can you reasonably keep the laws regarding minimum sentences secret? The sentencing laws are public and for anyone to find.
Jurors should weigh the law. If it is so in sync with societal norms there should be no difference. If however the jury believes the law unjust, they should act accordingly.
That’s what jury nullification is for. No need to know the possible sentence. Just vote Not Guilty.
To those who support knowing the sentencing guidelines before delivering a verdict, principally because of the moral issues involved:
Are you forthright about your views in voir dire?
Each time I’ve been called for jury duty, the judge has clearly stated that potential jurors are under the obligation not just to answer questions truthfully, but to be forthcoming about work, experiences, family relations, political views, or other factors that may affect one’s ability to render a verdict. So, if the judge asks John if he has been a victim of a crime, a truthful answer is not just “No, I have never been a victim of a crime,” but also “But my sister was assaulted last year and I’m really angry at violent criminals because of that.”
So I’m curious if you are forthcoming about your views on what jurors ought to be weighing in their deliberations.
Being truthful is not the same as relating the entirety of your life experiences.
This is a roundabout answer that I’m not sure I understand. If a judge asks you to be forthcoming about your life experience or political views that could impact your ability to follow the law and the judge’s instructions, you see no problem with omitting certain facts?
Does a juror’s oath to tell the truth, and the whole truth, during voir dire play into your thinking?
You said, "So, if the judge asks John if he has been a victim of a crime, a truthful answer is not just “No, I have never been a victim of a crime,” but also “But my sister was assaulted last year and I’m really angry at violent criminals because of that.”
Which is, oddly, not true. If I have never been a victim of a violent crime but my sister has, then if a judge asks if i have been a victim of a violent crime a correct, true, and accurate answer would be “no”. The question asked was of a Yes/No variety. Elaborating in that instance would also be factual, but simply answering no would not be dishonest or unethical.
I would communicate what I honestly believed is relevant. If they want more info, they can ask. I see no problem with this. If in the prior example I did not believe the history of my sister is relevant, then I would not disclose it.
As far as I’m concerned, I am telling the whole truth. If they ask if I own any guns, and I do, being honest would be to answer “yes”. It is not dishonest if I do not disclose the quantity and model of each.
I’m pretty sure there is no way that at trial a judge or lawyers could keep hidden mandatory sentences from a jury who wanted to know unless there is some serious sequestering going on.
As a juror, you are instructed not to do things like investigate the crime on your own time, or perform independent legal analysis. It is grounds for dismissal and a mistrial.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/davie-police-officer-convicted-of-rape-to-get-1126441.html
I’m not arguing that point. Are you disputing mine?
Just as when nullification happens you will never know the mind of the juror, you will also never know the juror who either already knows sentencing rules, or who finds out on their own.
I personally read penal code frequently as a matter of personal interest. Sentencing rules are a matter of public record. I don’t believe that knowledge of sentencing itself is prejudicial, just as knowing ahead of time that murder is criminal in a murder trial.