No, because I am opposed to the death penalty, therefore, even if I vote to convict the defendant I will not vote to kill him/her regardless of whether the execution will be sooner or later.
If you believe everyone deserves to die, I suppose believing everyone is pretty bad is a prerequisite.
I would keep it the same. The world is dangerous, and one of the many dangers that exist is that the government accidentally execute citizens. This isn’t a particularly likely threat. Your post brings up a good point, however, which is that we have a de facto higher standard of guilt (than beyond a reasonable doubt) in death penalty cases due to automatic appeals and the like.
Makes no difference what I believe or you believe. Maybe we move in different circles, but I rarely meet 200 year old ‘good’ people.
It would not affect my vote.
In a clear cut case, (and I can think of a few right here in my state), I’d have no problem with the execution being performed right then and there.
The only element that might change my vote is that I basically trust the current system to filter out any mistakes or oversights through appeals. I sometimes complain about how many appeals the current system gives, but everyone deserves some chance to appeal the verdict.
Still, if my choice as a juror is guilty or not guilty, then I need to make that determination based on the facts. I’m not being asked to determine the punishment.
The idea of seeing someone die in front of me is also not going to change my determination.
Q: Is there going to be a loud bug-zapper sizzle & pop? Will there be splatter?
Then again the judge is wearing a convenient robe over all his/her fine clothes, so what does he/she care?
It’s worth noting that this very scenario is deliberately avoided in most all modern Western civilizations. The judge is responsible for sentencing, normally including deciding on a death sentence or not. In cases where the jury gets to decide on a capital punishment it’s usually (always?) treated as a separate decision and deliberation from the determination of guilt.
And it’s done this way for a very good reason. Those of you who claim it wouldn’t effect your decision of guilt are being woefully optimistic…
If the Joker was caught red handed, in the act with zero doubt the nope it would bother me at all to say guilty, goodbye.
Someone would probably make a tidy sum manufacturing waterproof judicial robes.
I don’t follow you. In this scenario the jury aren’t deciding whether or not to apply the death penalty; they’re there should it be applied.
What about the people who have been exonerated while on death row? Fuck 'em?
I am opposed to the death penalty. I would not be more opposed if it happened in front of me.
I think that people who are in favor of it, but who would not be willing to throw the switch themselves have some weird moral calculus going on, and should reexamine their beliefs.
Raffle off the chance to do it, and defray the costs of the trial.
Regards,
Shodan
↑↑↑ This 
I’ll buy two. <veg>