As a juror, how would you judge this case?

[OXANDRIN]

this thread totally sucks........bump though

 

[gymtime]

"It was a fairly easy call based on his confession," Benedict said. "It's tragic. But regardless of the amount of pathos involved, our duty is to prosecute and enforce Connecticut's laws. This is clearly a violation of the murder statute."

This part says it all.

As a juror, I'd have no choice but to find him guilty of murder.

 

[Baoh]

Let him go. Just let him go.

 

[distanced]

I was going to give you the assclown award, but if you're going to talk like that, forget it.

you'll be sloppy seconds on that fat dick

 

[AustinTX]

Don't think I'd convict him.

Assisted suicide/euthanasia laws need to be in place so this sort of thing doesn't have to happen...

 

[SofaGeorge]

The American justice system was created with the vision that jurors could use common sense and NOT convict a guy like that. The idea was to have a "fully informed jury" so that justice would prevail... i.e., the intent of the law rather than the letter. Unfortunately, that concept is often forgotten in modern courtrooms.

It's important for jurors to remember - they can vote ANY way they want to. They are not punished by the court for not voting a certain way.

 

[bwood]

just do what we do with "real" murderers...

convict and sentence to probation...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Not guilty.

 

[Spruceman]

Not Guilty! Regardless of what the law states, the Founding Fathers (according to some of the writings of that time, I've been told) believed in jury nullification as a means of the citizenry helping to keep the gov't in check. Judges who tell jurors to find guilt or innocence based solely on the letter of the law are essentially going against the intent of the Constitution according to those believing in jury nullification. Sometimes nullification goes against common sense or morality such as some of the "not guilty" jury decisions in the deep South favoring Klansmen in the 1960's and earlier. Much of the questioning during voir dire of jurists is aimed at removing jurors with nullification leanings.

 

[ariolanine]

The American justice system was created with the vision that jurors could use common sense and NOT convict a guy like that. The idea was to have a "fully informed jury" so that justice would prevail... i.e., the intent of the law rather than the letter. Unfortunately, that concept is often forgotten in modern courtrooms.

It's important for jurors to remember - they can vote ANY way they want to. They are not punished by the court for not voting a certain way.

Too bad defense attorneys are not allowed to tell that to jurors. They are instructed to find them guilty or not guilty based on the letter of the law. Far too rigid.