Georgia wants a judge to be able to overrule a jury that can't agree to apply the death penalty


How is that going in the right direction?

I don't talk much about my opposition to the death penalty here. I understand that, like my veganism, I am n the minority in my beliefs. (Although I do think a lot more people oppose the death penalty than are vegan.)

I am against the death penalty for many reasons. Its application is human and fallible, while its outcome is irrevocable. I don't believe it has been proven to be a deterrent. It is merely revenge, or to put it more mildly, punishment, and I don't think it enhances society's moral standing to basically sink to the level of its worst criminals. I think it's one of the areas where America proves itself to be archaic compared to the rest of the Western world (lack of better solutions for health care being another area.) Not to mention it ends up costing tax payers more money long term.

But all that do-gooding liberalism aside, my actual number one reason to oppose the death penalty is that I don't like having the government own the ability to kill its own citizens...because I think it can be, will be and surely has been abused.

But whereas I would never vote for a candidate who would remove a woman's right to choose, I would and do vote for pro-death penalty candidates the majority of the time (just as I vote for carnivores!)

I do think our society will evolve on this issue.

But you wouldn't know it by looking at Georgia. Some legislators are reviving efforts to change the current law that requires a jury to sentence someone to the death penalty unanimously. Right now, all twelve jurors must agree to the death penalty for it to be the sentence. (And in capital cases they do look for jurors who say they are open to such a verdict.)

In this particular multiple-murder case, nine of the jurors were for the death penalty, and three were against. The legislators wish the judge could just overrule this lack of unanimity and sentence the killer himself. Part of their claim is that people will lie and say they're open to the death penalty...and then refuse to consider it once in they're in the deliberation room. It's a pretty strong accusation to make against the three jurors in this case.

Unanimity amongst a jury of our "peers" is a safeguard in our judicial system, and one of its founding principles...exactly to protect us from an overzealous or tyrannical government. I'm not sure eliminating it, particularly for the most irrevocable judicial outcome there is, is really in any of our best interests.

I'm always surprised at the anti-goverment folks who complain about the government's inability to do most things, but are really happy to have them in charge of killing people.

So, like I said, I don't talk about the DP too much here, but this story highlights some of my biggest concerns with it in a civilized, democratic society.

Posted: Sun - December 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM       EmailFeedback

©