Death Only By Juries, High Court Says

[Gonzo]

Interesting ruling...

Mon Jun 24,10:19 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of dozens of convicted killers Monday, ruling that juries and not judges must make this life-or-death decision.

The 7-2 ruling affects the way death sentences are imposed in at least five states. The court made its ruling retroactive, meaning that more than 150 death sentences must be reconsidered.

The court held that a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury. Juries, not judges, must consider all factors that lead to a death sentence, the court found.

In some states juries determine guilt or innocence, but a judge then bases the sentence on aggravating factors, such as the heinous nature of a murder or whether it was committed for monetary gain.

Monday's ruling turned on the Constitution's guarantee of a jury of one's peers and a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that struck down another kind of sentence determined by a judge instead of a jury.

 

[Q]

I don't really get the part about how it violates the defendants right to a trial by jury...They got a trial....the jury decided they were guilty...then the judge imposed the sentence.
Besides, I'm pretty sure sentencing is based on a point system. The judge can't just give a guy a one way ticket to old Sparky for stealing a hot dog from 7-11 cuz he doesn't like the way he looks.

 

[Gonzo]

Article III section 2

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

it does not instruct a judge to assess punishment. that would be part of the jury's job.

 

[Q]

It does not instuct a judge not to assess punishment, unless you're reading something I'm not.

If the jury is gonna act like a big buncha pussy babies then the judge should send them on their merry way and do the dirty deed himself.

Although, I'm kind of opposed to the death penalty just because it wastes so much time and money in appeals, it's cheaper to house an inmate for life than pay for the whole appeals process, so perhaps we should just lock up the death penalty candidates in solitary for life, with an extremely limited crappy menu, no outside stimulation.
Cruel and unusual, you say? pfft....it wouldn't be unusual at all if there were a shitload of them serving their sentence that way.

 

[s4]

i disagree. you are making the assumption that a judge is going to be fair and impartial, but i've met judges before and some of them are cocksuckers.

 

[Q]

The judge doesn't need to be impartial after a guy is convicted.

 

[s4]

How do you know he was impartial before? How do you know he isn't doing it out of personal malice or even prejudice? How do you know the guy didn't get bought off? There are too many possibilities concerning one man or woman having that much power. How many times have you heard of people in authority being corrupted? What if the guy has a wild hair up his ass that day from fighting with his wife?

 

[Q]

None of that matters. The fact is, if the guy got convicted, by a jury, of a capital offense, then the death penalty is a sentencing option....no matter who imposes it. And if the judge was not impartial during the trial and the defense has evidence to the fact, it is automatic grounds for appeal. Checks and balances. Our entire legal system is based on it.

Fortunately for you, burning trash is not a capital offense. We would not be having this stupid discussion.

 

[s4]

We don't have to discuss anything if you don't want. All you have to do is put me on your ignore list. I tried to put you on mine, but it wouldn't let me because you are a mod.

Sure it matters. One person should not have the authority to decide if another lives or dies. That's what juries are for.