Convince me to oppose death penalty

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Not necessarily. It sounds like a safeguard.


I didn't know you could refuse that in your country.

It's pretty easy to get out of murder trial, as a possible juror-- there is a jury vetting process before every trial, and usually you can tell by the questions, even if you don't know anything about the trial itself.

All you need to do, is answer any death-penalty questions with something indicating you'd always vote to acquit the suspect, if the death penalty was on the line.

That will keep you off all such trials, -- the prosecutor side will have you removed.

 

[Jumi]

Where do you live?
What is your system of verdict?
For minor offences we have civilian amateur magistrates sitting on benches for three, or we have stipendiary judges who are empowered to give judgements one their own.
But for all indictable offences we have juries.

We have lay judges which are like magistrates, but minor cases are by judge only. There are three judges in civil cases, no laymen. We have no jury system in Finland.

Having a jury sounds like it makes the legal process even more untrustworthy and random...

 

[Jumi]

It's pretty easy to get out of murder trial, as a possible juror-- there is a jury vetting process before every trial, and usually you can tell by the questions, even if you don't know anything about the trial itself.

All you need to do, is answer any death-penalty questions with something indicating you'd always vote to acquit the suspect, if the death penalty was on the line.

That will keep you off all such trials, -- the prosecutor side will have you removed.

Yeah, I've seen a dramatized version of the vetting process on tv long ago. Completely forgot about it.

What if you answer you'd always convict the suspect, would that excuse you also?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yeah, I've seen a dramatized version of the vetting process on tv long ago. Completely forgot about it.

What if you answer you'd always convict the suspect, would that excuse you also?

Yes, very likely the defense team would do so. Both sides have so many "reject" options during jury selection, but it's limited. Varies from state to state.

In some cases, however, the judge can overrule jury selection-- but I would stand by my own ethics-- even if it created a hung jury, I would never vote to convict, if the death penalty is on the line, regardless of the evidence.

Because I know how loose the word "evidence" is, with respect to reality. It's quite possible to rail-road an innocent for a crime they didn't actually commit. I don't even trust direct video-- have you seen a modern movie these days?

If the State really had it in for someone? I am quite certain it has the resources to create all the "evidence" required for a "conviction".

I've read too much history, to think otherwise.

 

[oldbadger]

We have lay judges which are like magistrates, but minor cases are by judge only. There are three judges in civil cases, no laymen. We have no jury system in Finland.

Having a jury sounds like it makes the legal process even more untrustworthy and random...

Yes, juries are very very risky, because their emotions can override common sense.
Bently was hanged because an idiot jury found him guilty but with a plea for clemency, when there was no clemency for the murder of a cop. Bently was under arrest and detained when his accomplice shot the policeman.
Crazy.

 

[stvdv]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

It's dificult to personally know what is right and what is not. All hypothetically this.

Best way to answer this is "if you must kill the killer, are you willing to do so". Not just turn a switch but by butchering him [Then you really know if it's oke]

 

[tayla]

Looking at several cases where the perpetrator killed people for their own "pleasure", or "hate" and show no remorse years later, it's kind of hard to come up with reasons why we should let these people still breathe the air they denied their victims. But since I'm always open to debate, I'd like to hear some arguments for and against.

The only problem is mistaken verdicts. But mistaken imprisonment is not so good either. Plus, who decides which crimes qualify? Seems the list should be much much longer, why limit it to life for life? Why not life for any violent crime causing psychological distress?

Anyway, this sounds like a good way to allow an autocratic government to prevail.