The Case of Troy Davis

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion and is exactly what I question. I've seen no study that supports or negates that opinion. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not.

In the jury questionnaire they outright ask if you are opposed to the death penalty.

There have been documented cases where a guilty person was either found innocent or, more often, the jury was hung because one or more anti-capital punishment people on the jury refused to find the accused guilty for fear that the death penalty would be imposed. So, in capital cases, it is necessary to ensure that the jury will not be influenced in their deliberations of guilt by extraneous considerations of punishment. After all, just because a person is not opposed to the death penalty does not imply that that person will call for that penalty every time it is offered.

Those people who support the death penalty, are also probably more likely to believe in harsh sentencing and are probably easier to convince.

As I said above, possible but unproven.

Like the jury I sat on recently . . . are the percentage of the population who are not rational thinkers.

This gets us even further on a tangent, but for a long time now I've felt that we need professional jurors. A new profession of people with legal training at about the paralegal level, with scientific and forensic understanding at about the high school science teacher's level, and with training or aptitude in rational and logical thinking. Jurors paid a living wage for their services. The expense for these jurors would be largely offset by the savings in court time resulting from eliminating repetitive lengthy explanation about law, forensics, etc. Given the complexity of modern society, it is highly unlikely that any of the jurors in a given trial understand the issues or the evidence. Thus, all too often the result hangs on the degree of charisma exhibited by the defendant, plaintiff (in civil cases) and lawyers on both sides.

We have yet to see where Pres. Obama lands in regards to the positioning of government power used against the people.

Actually, he is pretty open about his opinions in The Audacity of Hope (which I highly recommend -- he is a good thinker and presents his case well). What we have yet to see is how much political capital he is willing to spend to change the situation and how successful his attempts (if any) will be. Given the magnitude and immediacy of the other problems facing him, this one may get short shrift.

--Pete