The Case of Troy Davis

[kandrathe]

I've heard this before, but don't understand the logic. If a person is willing to sentence someone to death, does that imply that he is less likely to be impartial in his determination of guilt? Does it imply that he is more likely to impose a harsher sentence (execution aside)?

I think you get more of the "Hang em, no matter what" people, and some of the impartial apathetic people, and less of the presumed innocent people. In the jury questionnaire they outright ask if you are opposed to the death penalty. Those people who support the death penalty, are also probably more likely to believe in harsh sentencing and are probably easier to convince.

What about people like me (until recently); I am a 'child of the sixties', I do not trust the government and would hold the police, the prosecution, the judiciary, to a very high standard. Unless a good, fair case was made, I would vote 'innocent'. If substantive mitigating factors existed, I'd take them in consideration in sentencing. Was I so unusual, or was I a typical supporter of capital punishment?

No they by and large are not like you. You think and will understand the evidence understanding both what was presented and what was not presented. Like the jury I sat on recently (The case was against a heroine addict for witness tampering by talking to his wife on the phone), there was one guy that would not listen to the other 11 of us (10 after the 2nd day because one juror disqualified himself by talking to a witness >duh<). This guys mind was stone walled for conviction no matter what evidence was presented. There was obviously insufficient evidence to convict the addict of the charge (the felony version), but it was clear he was very guilty of the misdemeanor version of the law. The prosecutor was pushing for the felony to try to get the guy to roll over on some other charges pending against him. What you are forgetting about are the percentage of the population who are not rational thinkers.

If the law permits a punishment that one disagrees with, then it is the ballot box and not the jury room that should be used to change the law. Or so I feel, but perhaps I have quaint definitions of 'legislative', 'executive', and 'judicial'. Perhaps the ingredients in government stew have boiled in the same pot so long now that they've blended into one homogeneous mess.

The trend for the last 40 years has been the cliche' "tough on crime" candidate. Both political parties have tried to out do each other in proving that they are the true tough on crime party. The war on drugs has really been a war on liberty and weakening the rights of citizens to a fair trial, and equal protection. The war and terror has equally been an assault on personal liberty in the name of "protection". We have yet to see where Pres. Obama lands in regards to the positioning of government power used against the people. Meanwhile, we still get cases like the one where the single mother with young kids get 10 years minimum sentence because her dead beat dealer boyfriend hid 2 Kg's of coke in her closet, then testified against her in a plea deal to lighten his own sentence. Like I said earlier in this post, that a person can save themselves most of this agony by disassociating (if possible) with anyone or anyplace likely to attract police attention.