This article was extremeky interesting for me, talking about the difficult decisions that juries have to make in capital punishment crimes. I for one, support the death penalty so certain things stood out for me. I believe that the scum of our country who commit horrendous crimes do not deserve to live. Why should our tax money be used to support a criminal, who shouldn't even be living?
This article dives into specificalyy how jurors shouldn't be asked to do this job. Racism, prejudice, behavior and good looks can be determinant factors in how a juror subsconciously thinks. I always don't think that a group of 10 -15 people is a true representation fo an entire state. Most of the time jurors might not even know what they are deciding and the true pressure of their decision. In the COnnors example from this article the jurors aren't given pictures of where the criminal would be killed, just the victim. Photos are thrown in these peoples faces, but only from one side. That doesn't seem like a fair honest decision for me.
Other outside factors like I mentioned before can heavily affect the decision and outcome as well. How do we know jurors aren't really deciding to kill someone for the wrong reasons. It could be the color of their skin. It could be the way their eyes look. It could even be that someone looks like the ex of one of the members of the jury. So then that criminal is just unlucky that day?
I also found the part of the article where it questions how the jury members would change their decisions if it was more hands on. These members just have to vote or say a word, rather than doing the capital punishment themselves. I really do share this belief of wondering how the stats would change if deciding someone's death or life was more driectly from your decision. The role of the jury hides that dehumanization a little bit, while forcing jurors to make decisions in a confusing state with only some evidence from one side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
To start, I didn't read the article so I can only go off of what you said here...So in response to your comment on this article I got to thinking about my position on capital punishment...I personally am not sure. But you say that 1. you are for the death penalty & 2. that you don't feel that a jury of 10-15 is a sample large enough to make this kind of decision. I'm just wondering, who do you think should make this decision? One judge? Is that fair to just go with one person's opinion who most likely also has biases... or do you think a jury of 100 would be better? It seems like such an important decision that it is hard to tell who and how to make an appropriate ruling. I was just wondering your opinion because I haven't really formulated one of my own yet.
ReplyDelete