A moral dilemma for death penalty opponents

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

But how is letting a murderer go free better?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I support the death penalty, Option 3.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

Thanks Lewis.

I was waiting for Joe to deal with one problem at a time.

I was going to make the bifurcated trial matter my next issue.

[Torie]

If you can't follow the law in typical cases, you should not be on the jury, in this case for a capital crime charge. I do favor jury nullification, but only in the rare instance, where the facts are such, that application of the law would result in a great injustice given those particular facts. If one always voted not guilty in a capital case where the death penalty was in play, that would be highly irresponsible.

[Ebowed]

I cannot in good conscience vote to impose a death sentence on someone.

[Sewer]

I cannot in good conscience let a killer go free.

Guilty.

[Barnes]

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.

I agree with this.  I would vote for conviction (life in prison without parole is fitting for me), but vote against use of the death penalty.

[KuntaKinte]

Not guilty, except it is a unusually cruel, evil, disgusting murder. I guess my heart would win over my brain in some cases.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I cannot in good conscience let a killer go free.

Guilty.

[minionofmidas]

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.

At least I'm consistent!

[Joe Republic]

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

So, hypothetically, is it moral to state that one will abide by the Jury Instructions from the judge, and then subsequently ignore them because of a result one might dislike?

I understand complex situations are a little difficult for you but, real life is like that.

Oh, and I didn't even mention that common practice is for a bifurcated trial, with a guilt phase and a separate penalty phase.

Given your continued failure to grasp the terms outlined in this hypothetical scenario, I have no choice but to ignore any further attempts by you to shit on my thread.  Good day, sir.

The rest of you don't need to keep reiterating that this scenario could never happen, as I am well aware of that.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

So, hypothetically, is it moral to state that one will abide by the Jury Instructions from the judge, and then subsequently ignore them because of a result one might dislike?

I understand complex situations are a little difficult for you but, real life is like that.

Oh, and I didn't even mention that common practice is for a bifurcated trial, with a guilt phase and a separate penalty phase.

Given your continued failure to grasp the terms outlined in this hypothetical scenario, I have no choice but to ignore any further attempts by you to shit on my thread.  Good day, sir.

The rest of you don't need to keep reiterating that this scenario could never happen, as I am well aware of that.

You never answered my question about the morality of ignoring a judge's jury instructions!

Why?

[Joe Republic]

You never answered my question about the morality of ignoring a judge's jury instructions!

Why?

Simple.  Those are not the instructions the judge gave the jury in this scenario.  Happy?

[CARLHAYDEN]

You never answered my question about the morality of ignoring a judge's jury instructions!

Why?

Simple.  Those are not the instructions the judge gave the jury in this scenario.  Happy?

So, your hypothetical judge refuses to follow standard jury instructions?

Boy, your hypotheticals get stranger and stranger, and more detached from reality.

[Joe Republic]

I guess I'll need to revert to my stated intention of ignoring your continued attempts to feign a lack of understanding of the purpose of the exercise.

Unless I'm mistaken, and you genuinely have missed the entire point.  That seems likelier.

Additionally, given that you support the death penalty, I'm not sure why you're still posting in this thread.  The target audience is described clearly in the thread title.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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

But how is letting a murderer go free better?

It is not better at all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

But how is letting a murderer go free better?

     Better conscience not having been responsible for the death of a person. At least, unless the murderer killed again.

[Хahar 🤔]

But if the murderer is let free, couldn't he kill more people?

[Associate Justice PiT]

But if the murderer is let free, couldn't he kill more people?

     I think I already mentioned that that is a possibility.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, and I want to take you up on that.

Let's say that the murderer openly says that he will kill again if released. What do you do?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yeah, and I want to take you up on that.

Let's say that the murderer openly says that he will kill again if released. What do you do?

     Well if he does that then I would have to vote guilty & hold out for life in prison. If the consequences of acquitting him are equally forseeable to the consequences of convicting him, I'd rather hang him out to dry than some random person walking down the street.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, and I want to take you up on that.

Let's say that the murderer openly says that he will kill again if released. What do you do?

'kay, now our hypothetical is getting way irrational.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Had I been on a jury in a capital case here in the 1950's I would have 'voted' not guilty.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, and I want to take you up on that.

Let's say that the murderer openly says that he will kill again if released. What do you do?

'kay, now our hypothetical is getting way irrational.

This hypothetical was never really that rational.

And even if somebody happened to get on the jury and was opposed to the death penalty, and the murderer was clearly guilty, and the juror said "not guildty" on principle, it'd just lead to a hung jury.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yeah, and I want to take you up on that.

Let's say that the murderer openly says that he will kill again if released. What do you do?

'kay, now our hypothetical is getting way irrational.

This hypothetical was never really that rational.

And even if somebody happened to get on the jury and was opposed to the death penalty, and the murderer was clearly guilty, and the juror said "not guildty" on principle, it'd just lead to a hung jury.

A very good point.

I was going to get to that one after resolving other matters, but, Joe being Joe refused to answer my question about the "morality" of ignoring Jury Instructions, by denying such jury instructions (which I linked him to and which are standard)) would be given.