fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3054 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3054 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Ib (game)]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Forever]
[WARNING for blood/gore/etc]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I oppose the death penalty completely.

Apparently they dismissed jurors who were against the death penalty so they could pretty much guarantee he would get it.

They always dismiss anti-death penalty jurors, under the reasoning that they have to be willing to consider death penalty in a death penalty case. The problem is that it skews the juror, and pro-death penalty jurors are actually more likely to sentence to harsher punishments than anti-death penalty jurors. So it's in no way more fair.

I suspect it also skews towards conviction too. People that are pro-Death penalty these days are pretty much the better a hundred innocent be executed than one guilty go free demographic now.

Yeah, in actively weeding out people who might not be okay with the death penalty, you end up getting people who are really, REALLY for the death penalty. I reckon there's still something to be said about whether or not the defendant sells himself, or if the demographics of the jury cause them to identify with him or against him. But a VERY pro-death penalty person is just going to be more likely to use it.

They're required to do that. If the death penalty is an option, they are required by law to select from people who are *both* open to the death penalty and *also* to prison and parole for murderers. Otherwise, they'd just grab a bunch of people who are anti-death penalty, effectively nullifying the fact that it's even an option

Shouldn't they at least make it even then?

No

*Ideally* all jurors should be open to all options. It's not a bad idea to fill a jury with jurors that aren't ruling out certain ones before they even enter the courtroom.

It's not an idea that works, unfortunately. In practice it ends up in juries that lean toward the death penalty because people tend to be either very for or very against. But to fill half a jury with people who would not consider the death penalty *at all* would make the death penalty no longer an option when it is supposed to be

I think there's so much corruption in the picking-and-choosing of juries that the whole concept is meaningless (especially in the fact that they often veto people with higher educations or backgrounds in psychology or law). Not to mention allegations that courts deliberately try to confuse juries in the process.

AYRT

I agree. It sucks in practice but the ideal is a good one. Just trying to explain the ideal behind it

especially in the fact that they often veto people with higher educations or backgrounds in psychology or law

Wait, what

Ah, okay. Thanks for dropping the knowledge! (that was not meant to be sarcastic)

What happens if, theoretically, someone robs a bank and they fill a jury with people who are against the idea of prison? They know if they declare the guy guilty, he'll go to prison and they're against that. Of course the defense would opt to fill the jury with that kind of person and try to sway them into declaring someone innocent.

Juries being open to punishment options is really really important.

I understand after it being explained. Though, I guess I am biased considering I am against the death penalty. I wonder if I can use that as an excuse to get out of jury duty...."Madame President, I can't serve on this court because I am against people going to jail. I must recuse myself out this door."

Edited 2015-05-15 23:50 (UTC)

I think that's a bit harsh on the jury.

They pick only death qualified jurors -- meaning that they will only select those who are willing to impose the death penalty -- but that by no means guarantees that it will be imposed.

For one, they are told to weigh factors such as if the defendant displayed remorse which in this case he didn't.

Many of the jurors were visibly upset by it, but they imposed it because according to the guidelines, the defendant met the criteria. There's a 24 page guide for the imposition of the death penalty.

I understand you don't agree with it, but I don't think it's fair to the jurors to conclude that this wasn't a difficult decision for them.

I'm not mad at the jurors in particular. I mean, I don't know them.

But I think it is shitty they (the court/laws/whatnot) make that a requirement.

I'm comfortable being harsh with anyone who votes to murder a human being.

Kill

Murder is by definition an illegal killing

This is the opposite of that

They're voting to kill him.

It might seem like nitpicking, but I have had so many conversations with religious folk about the Bible and how "thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder" which is why God often decrees the killing of people.

It's an important distinction.

Words have meanings outside their legal contexts - as per wank recently, I saw a woman can rape a man, despite what laws define rape as. And I say the premeditated killing of someone not in self defense is murder. Because that's exactly what it is: it isn't self defense, it isn't even for any sort of financial cold logic reason. It's simply for the purpose of taking human life. It is murder.

In this case, though, I think the word murder really should continue to mean "an illegal killing" because, historically, that IS what it's meant and it is incredibly difficult to understand historical texts unless you keep that in mind. Diluting its meaning is counterproductive.

Kill is also very much a strong enough word to describe it. The US is killing him. Saying murder makes it sound like an extrajudicial killing when it's not. And given that the US ALSO engages in that (unfortunately) I think it's important that we keep the distinction.

I don't think "murder" has any implication besides an ethical judgment and bias. Which I have, so I think it applies.

Anyway, if you only allow governing bodies permission to not commit murder, where do you draw the line? Tyrannical leaders executing peaceful protesters? How about an ISIS-controlled area, are they exempt from murder because they are essentially the body in control? If the US comes out as absurdly corrupt, then can they murder people instead of kill them?

While I certainly understand your argument and the merits of distinction, I believe murder simply implies the killing is not just. Which I don't think it is.

gog damn. "The defendant didn't look apologetic enough so let's just kill him"

this whole thing is so fucked up.

[ SECRET POST #3054 ]

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death

Re: Boston Bomber Sentenced to Death