Should the death penalty be determined by the jury or the victim's family?

[kaz]

This is not a do you support the death penalty poll. I actually don't. However, if you don't suppose you do. Who should determine if the life of the murderer should be taken in return for their victim's? The jury? Or the family of the victim?

Note: This has nothing to do with the portion of the trial to determine guilt. We are assuming that part is complete and the criminal was convicted of the murder. We are also assuming the murder was intentional. It wasn't a case where they committed manslaughter, but they intentionally committed the murder.

Also, for the nit pickers out there, I'm not getting into whether there were multiple murders and victims families or one family who is divided, the thread is about the concept, not to debate the detailed rules.

To me at this point it's simple, the family should determine whether the criminal pays with their life or bestows mercy and allows them to live out their life in jail. They suffered the loss, they should be the ones to determine the fate of the person who intentionally did that.

What say you?

 

[Auld Phart]

Jury.

verdict, either for or against, should not be ruled by emotion.

 

[TNHarley]

Emotion has no business in our executive, legislative or judicial branches.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is not a do you support the death penalty poll. I actually don't. However, if you don't suppose you do. Who should determine if the life of the murderer should be taken in return for their victim's? The jury? Or the family of the victim?

Note: This has nothing to do with the portion of the trial to determine guilt. We are assuming that part is complete and the criminal was convicted of the murder. We are also assuming the murder was intentional. It wasn't a case where they committed manslaughter, but they intentionally committed the murder.

Also, for the nit pickers out there, I'm not getting into whether there were multiple murders and victims families or one family who is divided, the thread is about the concept, not to debate the detailed rules.

To me at this point it's simple, the family should determine whether the criminal pays with their life or bestows mercy and allows them to live out their life in jail. They suffered the loss, they should be the ones to determine the fate of the person who intentionally did that.

What say you?

Jury.

Think the means of execution should be family-decided. My fave's skinned alive beginning at the toes.

 

[mdk]

Jury. A grieving family cannot be trusted to make a rationale decision.

 

[shadow355]

The Jury.

Impartial peers whom make the determination of guilt or innocence ; and if guilty, to determine if the death penalty is applied or not.

Shadow 355

 

[Meathead]

Usually the jury decides questions of guilt and can make recommendations to the judge who passes sentence. The victims family can make statements before sentence is passed.

 

[shadow355]

Jury. A grieving family cannot be trusted to make a rationale decision.

Especially if an innocent person has been found guilty.

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center

Innocence and the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center


QUOTE = "Some people were exonerated posthumously."
List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Many Innocent People Are Sentenced To Death?



Shadow 355

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Victims should not have any say in penalties since it's so easy to bribe them into recommending mercy. Judges and juries are harder to bribe.

 

[Wildman]

i went for family, "emotion" cools after the too long a period before the verdict comes down, i personally have had family member killed, and i wanted the killer dead, as he did not have the right to continue wasting oxygen and polluting the environment with his putrid filthy exhales.

 

[Meathead]

QUOTE = "Some people were exonerated posthumously."
List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Many Innocent People Are Sentenced To Death?



Shadow 355

You'd better read your own link again if you think they were executed and then exonerated, in the US at least.

 

[Wildman]

Especially if an innocent person has been found guilty.

that is mostly in these days of DNA proof, witnesses, etc.

 

[Taz]

The death penalty should be determined by the crime, nothing else.

 

[saveliberty]

It is a judgment by society, which is represented by the jury.

 

[DGS49]

"The Rule of Law" ("RL") is a civilized replacement for "The Rule of the Jungle" ("RJ"). Under RJ, the victim is entitled to seek revenge for wrongs committed against it (or the friends, family, etc), and the revenge is generally intended to be more severe than the original injury. You kill one of mine, I kill two of yours (or blow up their house, with the same effect). Then you kill a whole family of mine, and so on.

Under the Rule of Law, revenge is replaced by justice. Under RL/justice, the offender is punished in a way that is intended to be proportional to the crime, to deter others, and to reflect the overall values of the society. The Sovereign may execute the offender, but maybe not; it is motivated by the overall benefit to society, not revenge. The victim and the victim's family have no real role in determining the punishment of the perpetrator under the Rule of Law; that's up to the Sovereign.

Allowing the family of the victim to decide whether to execute the offender is looping back to the Rule of the Jungle.

No good.