sounds like somebody lied on their jury questionnaire...
Posted on 05/24/2013 7:15:13 PM PDT by BenLurkin
In an interview Friday, jury foreman William Zervakos provided a glimpse into the private deliberations, describing four women and eight men who struggled with the question: How heinous of a killing deserves a similar fate?
"The system we think is flawed in that sense because this was not a case of a Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson," Zervakos told The Associated Press.
"It was a brutal no-win situation. ... I think that's kind of unfair," the 69-year-old added. "We're not lawyers. We can't interpret the law. We're mere mortals. And I will tell you I've never felt more mere as a mortal than I felt for the last five months."
(Excerpt) Read more at eastvalleytribune.com ...
“Asking them to decide between life or death makes no sense, as it is a determination of law.”
The law is us, not anything or anyone else. We the People decide our fate by the jury system. It is our responsibility as citizens. Judges are people too, citizens too, why cower from our responsibilities and toss it to them.
Our system of government is to allow us to have the power of such decisions so that our fellow citizens in government do not commit acts of tyranny against us.
We have failed to teach civics in school, but our kids know how to put on condoms and sodomize each other.
This country is saturated with frikkin’ pantywaists.
[[Arias Trial: Jury foreman says life or death decision unfair]]
How unfair was it mr jury person? As unfair as Travis gettign his head nearly sliced compeltely off? Gettign stabbed IN THE BACK several times? Gettign shot? Bleeding heart idiots have no right servign on jury- peopell iek you are icnapable of meeting out justice-
sounds like somebody lied on their jury questionnaire...
Actually I don’t believe the death penalty is a punishment for the simple fact that the only real punishment is they put you to sleep. Of course you never wake up, but where is the punishment in that? Maybe in hell, but for me they should be given something worse than death. Namely put in an unpadded cell and have this sound bite piped in 24 hours a day 7 days a week for the rest of their lives..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0
If this had of been reverse...the guy would get the death sentence..and no time to convict either.
This gal has the media in her hip pocket as well as the courtroom....not because she’s innocent or especially attractive...but because we all get to see in operation what a true psycopath is, how they operate and how manipulative they are.
The Psychopath generally will be highly organized and will plan the actions, fantasize about them and carry them on according to plan.... (check out her prison cell).
Psychopaths will highly manipulate others, and have no sense of guilt for they lack a conscience. When they engage in harmful behaviors to others they do so with no guilt or remorse, and lack the ability to emotionally bond with those close to them.
Additionally...Psychopaths go to greater lengths to justify their actions, just as wee see Jodi do time and again.
Travis was not important to Jodi just because of her obsession about him per se.... Travis was important to Jodi because what he represented was somewhat meaningful to her..... He embodied popularity and satisfied her narcissistic tendencies.... He was a trophy.... In fact, he was popular, well loved and successful.
She envisioned herself beside a man who had popularity and power in his community. Travis was an accomplishment to her.
This is also why she was seeking the interviews with the Journalist she “chose”...she wanted to be affiliated with him.
Least we forget the barbaric manners of Jodi...last half of these series of photos show the extreme damage she did to this man she professed to love. Some of what the jury saw....
(Caution....Caution....Very Graphic!!!!!!)
http://wildabouttrial.com/photos-from-the-travis-alexander-murder-case-graphic/
-Annie Aguzzi-
It’s more complicated.
There are several important cases about the sentencing phase, with perhaps the most current being Ring v. Arizona (2002), in which the SCOTUS decided that the jury finds guilt or innocence, *and* if aggravating factors exist.
But, according to a concurring opinion by justice Scalia:
“What today’s decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so — by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase.”
This pretty well says what I said, that ultimately, it should be a judge who decides life or death, after a jury has found guilt, and aggravating circumstances. But they do not need to make the final pronouncement.
Arias said she wanted the death penalty. Give it to her.
Seems to me some jurors lied on whether they could give the death penalty based on what this guy is saying.
What difference does it make?
I believe I heard that Arizona is the only state that has this goofy third option in the penalty phase as a verdict,” no unanimous decision” which was their verdict. Worthless and absolutely designed for failure, not to mention, a touch of double jeopardy. If a jury can’t unanimously decide death, then it should automatically default to a life sentence. IMO, this should have never been a death penalty case, and lasted no longer than two weeks. These were two adults in a very dysfunctional relationship, she was obviously unstable, he was obviously willing to overlook her instability for sex. He let her into his house one too many times.
I get the feeling that many of them didn't want to give her life without parole. Although the crime was grizzly, it was not more heinous than your typical murder. She killed one man most likely in a fit of anger. Most murderers are not given life without parole, but 25 to life or life with parole. The average murderer in America serves about 12 years.
The problem in this case is that the jury was instructed to give her either the death penalty or life without parole. They were not given any opportunity to exercise their own discretion in the process.
I wonder what would have happened if the jury ignored the judge's instructions and came back with a unanimous verdict of 25 years with a chance of parole?
Cop-out remark.
Fx News commentator had suggested that defense attorney dragged out trial so that jury would get to know Arias and be reluctant to give death penalty. I think that strategy has paid off.
***Jury foreman says life or death decision unfair***
Well, maybe we could just kill her a little bit.
BUMP.
Precisely right.
“We’re not lawyers. We don’t interpret the law.”
If ever there was an argument for arriving at a unanimous decision, that’s it.
Besides, as Paul Newman’s character said to the jury in “The Verdict,” “Today you are the law.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.