A moral dilemma for death penalty opponents

[Joe Republic]

Let's say that you live in a state that has the death penalty, and you have been called for jury duty in a murder case.  The evidence overwhelmingly points towards the defendant being guilty.

If the jury finds the defendant guilty, he/she is certain to get the death penalty.  Your vote for his/her guilt would therefore contribute to this sentence.

As an opponent of the death penalty, how would you vote?

(If you support the death penalty, please only vote for Option 3.)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Joe,

It is standard practice (the legal term is voir dire) to ask all prospective jurors in a case where the death penalty may be sought if they would be willing to impose such a penalty.  If the answer is no, they are disqualified.

[Joe Republic]

Well, that's a pretty useful way of separating the rational people from the sadists, I suppose.  Fairly disturbing at the same time, of course, given the opportunity the sadists will then find themselves in.

In any case, let's continue this scenario as a hypothetical.  Let's say that the option to recuse oneself for this reason is denied.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, that's a pretty useful way of separating the rational people from the sadists, I suppose.  Fairly disturbing at the same time, of course, given the opportunity the sadists will then find themselves in.

In any case, let's continue this scenario as a hypothetical.  Let's say that the option to recuse oneself for this reason is denied.

Should one then ignore Jury Instructions?

http://www.myazbar.org/SecComm/Committees/CRJI/CRJI-PDF/StandardCriminal.pdf

[Joe Republic]

It's a hypothetical moral dilemma, CARL.  Deal with it.

[k-onmmunist]

Guilty, reluctantly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Supreme Court as well as others have ruled repeatedly that mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional. I could easily just vote against the death penalty in the sentencing phase, as it must be unanimous to impose it. There's also what CARL said. So the scenario could never happen.

But if we must assume it could:

Guilty, reluctantly.

[minionofmidas]

In addition to what Carl says, the SC has also seen fit to declare it unconstitutional, in death penalty cases only, to take sentencing out of the jury's hands. It is therefore entirely unproblematic to agree to a guilty verdict but hold out for life without parole. (Yeah, so it's a hypothetical. I'm dealing with it.)

If forced to either let a murderer go or conspire in the murder of a helpless individual, I would of course feel morally bound to the bad-but-not-monstrously-evil choice. Not guilty.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

I wouldn't vote guilty. I couldn't deal with myself doing that if it wasn't a big one. but then I would be complain on how a state could have the death penalty in the first place. If he did something really really really really bad then yes. But it has to be really bad. And I have to confident in the evidence not being tampered with. It is really on what he is accused of doing. And why he did what he did. That is very important for my voting reason.

[Mechaman]

Not Guilty

[Joe Republic]

The Supreme Court as well as others have ruled repeatedly that mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional. I could easily just vote against the death penalty in the sentencing phase, as it must be unanimous to impose it. There's also what CARL said. So the scenario could never happen.

In addition to what Carl says, the SC has also seen fit to declare it unconstitutional, in death penalty cases only, to take sentencing out of the jury's hands. It is therefore entirely unproblematic to agree to a guilty verdict but hold out for life without parole. (Yeah, so it's a hypothetical. I'm dealing with it.)

Let's not assume that the scenario takes place in the United States.

I wouldn't vote guilty. I couldn't deal with myself doing that if it wasn't a big one. but then I would be complain on how a state could have the death penalty in the first place. If he did something really really really really bad then yes. But it has to be really bad. And I have to confident in the evidence not being tampered with. It is really on what he is accused of doing. And why he did what he did. That is very important for my voting reason.

The charge in this hypothetical case is murder.

[minionofmidas]

The Supreme Court as well as others have ruled repeatedly that mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional. I could easily just vote against the death penalty in the sentencing phase, as it must be unanimous to impose it. There's also what CARL said. So the scenario could never happen.

In addition to what Carl says, the SC has also seen fit to declare it unconstitutional, in death penalty cases only, to take sentencing out of the jury's hands. It is therefore entirely unproblematic to agree to a guilty verdict but hold out for life without parole. (Yeah, so it's a hypothetical. I'm dealing with it.)

Let's not assume that the scenario takes place in the United States.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is another country where both these barbarisms, jury trials AND the death penalty, still survive.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

I wouldn't vote guilty. I couldn't deal with myself doing that if it wasn't a big one. but then I would be complain on how a state could have the death penalty in the first place. If he did something really really really really bad then yes. But it has to be really bad. And I have to confident in the evidence not being tampered with. It is really on what he is accused of doing. And why he did what he did. That is very important for my voting reason.

The charge in this hypothetical case is murder.

yes, but why did he murder? And if he is mentally ill lets not kill him for that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Executing the mentally ill has also been ruled to be unconstitutional.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Executing the mentally ill has also been ruled to be unconstitutional.

With good reason, as has executing minors (although that may mean people under 16, I don't remember).

[Bo]

Guilty, reluctantly.

I agree with this. I'd rather have a criminal (in my opinion) be dead than be released only to kill someone later.

[7,052,770]

Guilty, reluctantly.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

So you are asking which is preferable, the death penalty or no punisment at all.

Well, I support it, so option 3.

[A18]

If forced to either let a murderer go or conspire in the murder of a helpless individual, I would of course feel morally bound to the bad-but-not-monstrously-evil choice. Not guilty.

We really need to impose a death sentence upon anyone who consistently abuses the English language.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I support the death penalty, Option 3.

[Psychic Octopus]

Guilty, reluctantly.

[Mint]

Wouldn't happen for the reasons people stated, but probably not guilty.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not guilty. Two wrongs don't make a right, though as pointed out elsewhere this would never happen in real life.

[CatoMinor]

Guilty, reluctantly.

[Phony Moderate]

     Not guilty. Two wrongs don't make a right, though as pointed out elsewhere this would never happen in real life.