the EXECUTIONER....

[Warik]

Shouldn't ending someone's life require a long deliberative process to ensure that the right person is in fact the one who truly committed the crime?

It's called "trial by jury." You know... the thing that happens BEFORE the guy is sentenced to death? Shouldn't you, as a future lawyer, know this?

-Warik

 

[RyanH]

consequences of the gravest proportions. That lab technician should be in prison for the rest of her life, even if she didn't do anything on purpose. Her incompetence cost people their lives.

For the FIRST TIME EVER I agree with you----her incompetence should receive a stiff penalty.

 

[RyanH]

It's called "trial by jury." You know... the thing that happens BEFORE the guy is sentenced to death? Shouldn't you, as a future lawyer, know this?

I'm perfectly aware of what goes on in a jury, and anyone familiar with the jury process or with common sense for that matter, realizes that juries do make mistakes. Not only do juries often make mistakes, sometimes the judge gives erroneous instructions or evidence was included or excluded that should not have been.

To say that a simple jury trial should completely decide the issue of life and death is a very extreme and unjustifiable statement........And would probably prove unconstitutional.

Should we count the number of cases where juries have made mistakes.....we would be sitting here for an infinite amount of time.....

 

[Warik]

I'm perfectly aware of what goes on in a jury, and anyone familiar with the jury process or with common sense for that matter, realizes that juries do make mistakes. Not only do juries often make mistakes, sometimes the judge gives erroneous instructions or evidence was included or excluded that should not have been.

So why isn't a person retried and why doesn't the state "appeal" when a guilty man is set free? (I think we can all come up with a good example or two).

Because it's unconstitutional? Since when did your gun-grabbing self care about what's in the Constitution? Oh that's right... since it started becoming convenient for you to do so.

To say that a simple jury trial should completely decide the issue of life and death is a very extreme and unjustifiable statement........

To say that a simple jury trial should completely decide the issue of a murderer or rapist's innocence is just as extreme and unjustifiable.

What the fuck is the point of the jury then, pray tell?

-Warik

 

[Warik]

If juries are so incompetent, why do we have them? Why do we pick 12 people off the street who are on the jury because they weren't intelligent enough to get OUT of jury duty? Why don't we have hired and paid jurors who serve on juries for a living?

lawyer #1: "blahblahbalh"

lawyer #2: "objection your honor!"

judge: "sustained... the jury will disregard lawyer #1's last comment"

You think the jury is going to disregard? Lol... the jurors are peons. We're not going to get justice either way.

Ok... I'm off on a rant now.

Basically my point is that if we are going to use the death penalty in this country, then damn, please use it. If we do use it, please fix our laughable judicial system so that innocent people are not put to death. And once our laughable judicial system is fixed so that innocent people are not put to death, please put the guilty to death quickly.

-Warik