Yurt
Gold Member
you're the one making an issue over the time factor, not megeauxtohell said:The point of the statement is that people are more than willing to make a decision if they don't have to do the dirty work.
your underlined once again proves my point....a juror would not likely convict if they had to do the "dirty work" of guarding them....you're just to arrogant to admit you're wrong so you'll just spout crap about how i'm a hockey puck
No you are comparing apples and oranges and trying to walk with that BS argument.
The issue has always been about the ultimate act of taking life. Most ordinary people want no part of it. That's why Juries are shielded from it by simply giving a verdict. My BIL's point was, in a hypothetical world where juries had to execute the defendant they found guilty, they would be less likely to vote "guilty".
Other than that, I have no idea why you keep bringing up the "guarding for life" vignette. Life imprisonment is not equal to execution.
If it were, no one would be getting worked up over this issue.
its apples to apples....that is, convicting someone if you are willing to mete out the punishment....it doesn't matter if its death or life in prison, the core and sole issue is whether a jury would convict if they had to mete out the punishment....
and my point about your brother in law's comment is that it is logically absurd and since you brought up legal knowledge...his point is also legally flawed as juries are not supposed to mete out punishment, that would destroy impartiality of the jury
next