Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Jury Duty: "State Requests Vote for Death Penalty" !
Dakini
Veteran
I received a jury summons. Today I went for the first round of the selection process, which involved filling out a detailed form asking, among other things, my religion, my views on the death penalty, and related issues.
I was shocked to discover it was a murder trial, defendant had killed a police officer, so the state was asking for the death penalty. I didn't know my state had the death penalty. The way the questions were worded, it sounded like the State assumed jurors would vote for the death penalty. Maybe the death penalty is required if a police officer is killed, but I'm not aware of such a law.
What would you do in this situation? I'm not asking for advice, I'm curious as to people's responses.
(note to mods: this is in Modern Buddhism because it's about applying Buddhism to a real-life situation.)
I was shocked to discover it was a murder trial, defendant had killed a police officer, so the state was asking for the death penalty. I didn't know my state had the death penalty. The way the questions were worded, it sounded like the State assumed jurors would vote for the death penalty. Maybe the death penalty is required if a police officer is killed, but I'm not aware of such a law.
What would you do in this situation? I'm not asking for advice, I'm curious as to people's responses.
(note to mods: this is in Modern Buddhism because it's about applying Buddhism to a real-life situation.)
0
Comments
While that would get you out of the selection if it seems that's what the state is pushing for, it certainly doesn't address the wider issue of the sentence itself, though.
until my wife tell me to stop messing around and then i'd just be honest and say that i don't believe in death penalty so i wouldn't be chosen to be on the jury.
@Arjquad 's question about evidence is interesting. The only options presented in the introduction to the detailed questionnaire (haven't been questioned in person yet, that's Round 2 of selection process, for those who make it past this initial weeding-out) were death, or a life sentence. It's not a decision about guilty or innocent. It's about whether there are sufficient "mitigating factors" to deny the death penalty (defendant was mentally ill, or had an abusive childhood, or has been cooperative with law enforcement since his arrest, the victim wasn't in fact a police officer, etc.), in favor of life plus extra years. What's the point of adding more onto a life sentence? So the trial is about determining if there were "mitigating factors", and whether death is warranted.
I could not be part of a jury selection...I would vote against.
Like, first, we remove everyone who wants to keep the men alive; then talk for a while, and ask who would let the man live? Seriously?
:wtf:
But for the record, I am against the death penalty. If it were me, I would answer everything truthfully (maybe even a little louder/clearer than they ask for, haha) and if I was picked, well, so be it.
Not sure if youre aware - be careful what aspects of the case (if at all) you discuss with people especially online - this may put you in conflict with the law or worse may effect your personal safety.
Zero is right... be careful
Jury duty is such a pain in the ass I hope you don't get picked.
Consult your heart.
And make your move.
Or are you simply talking about doing your civic duty by being on the jury? If that's the case, then I think if a Buddhist truly follows the precepts against killing, or being part of killing (which arguably, voting for the death penalty is) is being irresponsible to him/herself by being part of that process. I believe in doing one's civic duty, but not if doing it violates one's personal beliefs and the precepts.
I guess if you won't serve on a jury for that reason, then you also wouldn't serve in the military. And so, if there was still a draft, as there was when I came along, would you go to jail rather than serve?
The whole thing sounds like a set-up, like it's already decided. One of the questions was: "Would you respect the vote of a juror who was against the death penalty?", as if it's assumed that jurors against the death penalty would be harassed.
In this case I would be completely honest and forthright about my Buddhist beliefs.
Karma will deal with everything.
[edit]Impartial jury
Main article: Jury trial
The right to a jury has always depended on the nature of the offense with which the defendant is charged. Petty offenses—those punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months—are not covered by the jury requirement.[2] Even where multiple petty offenses are concerned, the total time of imprisonment possibly exceeding six months, the right to a jury trial does not exist.[3] Also, in the United States, except for serious offenses (such as murder), "minors" are usually tried in a juvenile court, which lessens the sentence allowed, but forfeits the right to a jury.
Originally, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial indicated a right to “a trial by jury as understood and applied at common law, and includes all the essential elements as they were recognized in this country and England when the Constitution was adopted.”[4] Therefore, it was held that juries had to be composed of twelve persons and that verdicts had to be unanimous, as was customary in England. When, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court extended the right to a trial by jury to defendants in state courts, it re-examined some of the standards. It has been held that twelve came to be the number of jurors by "historical accident," and that a jury of six would be sufficient[5] but anything less would deprive the defendant of a right to trial by jury.[6] Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity.[7]
The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. At voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.
Another factor in determining the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected. Venires must represent a fair cross-section of the community; the defendant may establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group, and that the under-representation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process. Thus, in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that exempted women who had not made a declaration of willingness to serve from jury service, while not doing the same for men. From wiki
That said, you should tell the truth in the selection process no matter what. This is because the attorneys will be seeking someone who is impartial in every respect including the death penalty, and if you make it clear you are against it you will be tossed out of the jury pool for that case. If you're lucky, like me, you might even end up as a juror in traffic court where death sentences don't happen.
So, there goes the imperfect, but one of the best justice systems in the world.
Forget telling them about your religious beliefs, just tell them that as a human being dedicated to spreading peace and love you can not commit a man to be another piece of flesh to be ground down in the vengeance machine that passes for our criminal justice system.
The person giving him the injection will get all the nice effects of wrong livelihood, but regarding his immediate action, the job has to be done - after all, the jury decided that was the way to go, not him (he just has to pay college for his kids).
Meanwhile, the "justice process", as you may call it, is crying silently in the corner, being the scapegoat of just anything people can think of, and having no physical appearance to disagree with the accusations towards it, taking the responsibility for every ridiculous action ever thought of by men.
Please, be nice to the justice process
:rolleyes: