I believe it should be a unanimous decision whether its lwop or death. If one dissenter appears then they would either have to give in or a new jury will decide until the decision is made.
I believe it should be a unanimous decision whether its lwop or death. If one dissenter appears then they would either have to give in or a new jury will decide until the decision is made.
To answer to the original question asked by this thread, it is clear that providing that a split jury results in a life sentence is a nonsense, not only because a prospective juror may lie during jury selection, but simply because a single juror is not likely to be right against 11 other. A death sentence must be extraordinary, but not abnormally rare as it has been during the years preceding this post.
Indeed, because of this insane rule, many juries that would otherwise deadlock finish with a pseudo-unanimous life sentence, because jurors favoring death know at some point that it is useless to continue the deliberations.
Currently only two states allow a supermajority death sentence: Alabama with a minimum of 10 votes, and Florida with a minimum of eight.
But four other states requiring unanimity provide a retrial with another jury, rather than a life sentence when the jury deadlocks (Kentucky, California, Arizona, and Nevada).
And contrary to the usual abolitionist propaganda, there is no constitutional issue over that.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/...ty-requir.html
That is the true unanimity rule. That is indeed why for guilt trials, all states and all common law countries provide a retrial in case of jury deadlock. It is only for the death penalty that the irrational single-juror veto rule has been created.
In 2019 senator Pat Toomey, with senator Ted Cruz among co-sponsors, proposed the Eric’s Law that would change that.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/2264/text
The bill is named after Eric Williams, a correctional officer stabbed and killed with a sharpened weapon by an inmate who was already serving a life sentence for murder, and was spared by a lone juror. The following can be added about the proposal:
– The bill as written in 2019 is incomplete because it lacks parallel provisions for courts-martial and military commissions. For them, better requiring a three-fourth majority for a death sentence and accept a decision for the defendant when this majority is not reached, since that's already the court-martial rule for conviction and any other sentence, and it's highly unlikely to have more than one quarter of rogue members when they are appointed by the military.
– It is hard to understand why this bill provides only one retrial. A two-among-24-jurors veto rule is not significantly more rational. Indefinite number of retrials is the rule for guilt trials. There is no reason to have a different scheme for the penalty phase.
And of course, life without parole should be the minimum sentence for any capital crime, and the judge should have no right to deny such a sentencing retrial, much less to overrule the jury's verdict on the penalty. The judge should formally pass the sentence immediately after the jury foreman read it, rather than to delay it to a superfluous and juryless days-apart hearing.
There is also no need that the sentencing phase takes the form of weighing factors. The question should simply be: what the penalty shall be, as in California.
But of course, the best sentencing system by far is mandatory death sentences:
http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/...l=1#post146930
Last edited by Steven AB; 10-09-2023 at 03:25 PM.
"If ever there were a case for a referendum, this is one on which the people should be allowed to express their own views and not irresponsible votes in the House of Commons." — Winston Churchill, on the death penalty
The self-styled "Death Penalty Information Center" is financed by the oligarchic European Union. — The Daily Signal
Juries should only decide whether aggravating circumstance is present or the defendant committed a death-eligible crime. Any mitigation and weighing should be left to judges.
Don't ask questions, just consume product and then get excited for next products.
"They will hurt you. They will hurt your grandma, these people. The root cause of this is there's no discipline in the homes, they don't go to school, you know, they live off the government, no personal accountability, and they just beat people up for no reason, and it's disgusting." - Former Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters
Yes, because there are people out there that vote based on race, gender and religion
Thank you for the adventure - Axol
Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park
Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt
I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello
No that's abolitionist propaganda. The racial argument dodge can be used against any law disfavoring criminals and is exploited by powerful elites against anything they are opposed to. Recently, it has been used to oppose mandatory penalties for pedophiles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0gzSsOZoQc (Claiming that "If our justice system were fair, the prison population would reflect the country's population in terms of race and ethnicity.")
That would be much power given to a single trier, so it would be acceptable only if both the prosecution and the convict could appeal the sentence to a numerous collegial court that could both reduce the punishment to life or raise it to death by a simple majority vote, as the Supreme Court of Japan can.
But in the United States sentencing by jury alone is now the rule in all but four death penalty-states, so adopting the true unanimity law, allowing a sentencing retrial rather than a life sentence when the jury deadlocks, is the most realistic improvement to support, until the U.S. Supreme Court re-allows mandatory death sentences.
http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/...l=1#post132530
Last edited by Steven AB; 10-09-2023 at 03:35 PM.
"If ever there were a case for a referendum, this is one on which the people should be allowed to express their own views and not irresponsible votes in the House of Commons." — Winston Churchill, on the death penalty
The self-styled "Death Penalty Information Center" is financed by the oligarchic European Union. — The Daily Signal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks