Ethical question regarding the death penalty

[livinginphotographs]

This question is directed to those who are opposed to the death penalty: since you would be disqualified from serving on the jury in a capital case if you admit you are opposed to the death penalty, what would be the right thing to do? Lie to stay on the jury and prevent the accused from being executed, or be honest and get kicked off the jury?

My gut would be to lie so that I could stay on the jury, but I feel a little conflicted about that whole respecting the courts thing. Just looking for thoughts...

[RebelYell]

1. I would asked to be excused from the jury, but I see your point nt

[question everything]

2. I have felt the same way

and I remember a movie where a prospective juror said that he believed that the punishment should fit the crime, or something like that.

Then it would be easier, I think, to conclude that no crime deserves a state-sanctioned execution.

Then, I wondered, sure, the prosecution would like not to have people like us as jurors, but the defense has a say, too, so I am not sure how this would work.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. I have wondered about this as well

I could never in good concience approve of the death penalty for anyone..it just seems as though you are stooping to the level of th ekiller.

[EST]

3. Be honest

After all--honesty is the best fallacy.

[livinginphotographs]

5. But this is where I'm kind of torn between the two.

If I'm honest and get excused from the jury, I'm respecting the law. But then, I'm wasting my chance to save someone from being executed.

Not that I'm asking for a definite answer, I'm just pondering this tonight...

[merh]

6. Since an oath is administered during voir dire (jury selection) prior

to having the jurors answer questions, I would have to come clean and tell them I oppose the death penalty. I couldn't lie under oath.

Even if I were not under oath, I would have to answer that I oppose the death penalty.

[DIKB]

7. The Justice System is flawed

There have been SO many cases, especially in the last few years, of rapes, murders and other serious offenses being turned over due to DNA evidence. Some of these people might have been executed in the time it took to develop the technology. How many had ?

I'd have to be ethical and honest. I MIGHT support the death penalty, but that evidence better be stronger than *'s erection on 9/11, when he figured out he could use it to attack Iraq. (I said it back in 2001, "A 3-inch erection harder than 6-inch steel.")

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Aside from the fact that you are lying...

it might cause more harm than good.

In most places trials are split into two sessions-- the guilt phase and the penalty phase. The jurors are not necessarily the same, although they probably would be.

Since it's a capital trial, would your opposition to the death penalty affect your determination of guilt or innocence? Do you want to be in a position where you might be tempted to set the guilty free simply to avoid the punishment?

At the penalty hearing, you might have a chance to make a difference, or, your opposition might just hang the jury, simply drawing out the foreordained conclusion. Or you get kicked off and an alternate called in.

Capital trials are rare in most places, but if I ever got called to one my answer would be to simply say that I could not justify the death penalty under any circumstances. In a way, it is just washing my hands of it, but it is really the only proper option.

[CaTeacher]

9. I could never sentence anyone to death.

I just couldn't. I have heard stories of innocent people ending up on death row. I wonder how many of the poor people who have been executed through the centuries were innocent victims?

I don't know if I could lie convincingly--I have never been any good at being duplicitous.

Besides, a sharp attorney will be asking the questions in several ways--trying to assess your values in ways that you aren't even aware of--and the people who do jury selection have it down to a science.

And of course the penalty phase may be done separately anyway--or decided by a judge not a jury....

[WMliberal]

11. i wouldn't have a problem with sending a guilty verdict.

and i'm totally against death penalty. odds are that i would be on the sentencing jury anyway. like i said in my own reply, i'm for leveling the playing field.

[WMliberal]

10. i feel the coursts are rigged in favor of the rich, so

i have no ethical qualms about leveling the playing field as best as I can