Community Chat

[Stray]

I am pro death penalty but jurors have to make a decision that their conscience can handle.  You can't make a decision based on your viewpoint or ideology.  I believe the jury would have delivered a death penalty decision but there was a holdout or two as they kept asking to see pictures of the carnage.  It is not easy to put another human to death and some do deserve to die but in this case they felt he was mentally ill and the death penalty was not appropriate.  But, I hope the jurors did not vote based on their personal ideology.  It doesn't matter what we think, but if the families of those murdered feel justice was served and maybe they do? 

[Puzzle Piece]

---

@Marp wrote:

No unanimous verdict means life WOP on all counts.

---

Iin this case, can't the judge take matters into his own hands?  The guy deserves a firing squad.

[AuntG]

I'm glad it is over for those poor families who lost loved ones. My DH said he will probably get the death sentence while in prison as they have their own form of justice.

[Cakers3]

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

---

---

Iin this case, can't the judge take matters into his own hands?  The guy deserves a firing squad.

---

Are you serious??????????  We have a judicial system in place - he received a fair trial and was judged by a panel of his peers.  If we are going to start giving judges the right to impose their own belief systems, and that is what it would be, then we have all lost our Constitutional rights when it comes to trials.

There is no legal reason for the judge to overturn this sentence; good heavens what in the world are you thinking??????????

[Marp]

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

---

@Marp wrote:

No unanimous verdict means life WOP on all counts.

---

Iin this case, can't the judge take matters into his own hands?  The guy deserves a firing squad.

---

In most states the judge can override a death sentence but cannot override a lesser sentence such as this.  Also, in this case, I believe lwop is imposed by statute if the jury declines the death penalty.

[MarcyG72]

I believe "an eye for an eye" .... when I read about the mother who lost her own child, her unborn baby, and she herself became paralyzed, I felt this man did not deserve life.

He was rational enough to "plan" the massacre, so he should not be allowed the privilege of waking up every day looking forward to having three meals a day, TV, and cigarettes.

[SydneyH]

---

@Puzzle Piece wrote:

---

---

Iin this case, can't the judge take matters into his own hands?  The guy deserves a firing squad.

---

??? A judge is not going to override life wop to death, despite what you think he 'deserves'.

[suzyQ3]

---

@LuvMySpaniels wrote:

I believe "an eye for an eye" .... when I read about the mother who lost her own child, her unborn baby, and she herself became paralyzed, I felt this man did not deserve life.

He was rational enough to "plan" the massacre, so he should not be allowed the privilege of waking up every day looking forward to having three meals a day, TV, and cigarettes.

---

If you believe in "an eye for any eye," you do not believe in our Constitution or our legal system. You believe in a form of fundamentalist law that we so loudly decry in certain countries. You believe in Sharia law.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Pearlee wrote:

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Pearlee wrote:

I'm thinking sharke meant "prison justice."

---

As I said, that's vigilantism.

---

Justice and vigilanteism don't have to be different things.

If you have never seen the film Witness for the Prosecution, watch it some time. It's a great film and the last line of it is relevant to this discussion.

---

I've seen it many times. I do not recall the last line. It is a movie, and I don't look to movies for inspiration regarding our Constitution and our justice system.

Justice in our legal system cannot coexist with people taking the law into their own hands, no matter how much they feel that it is deserved.