Then make a decision and give her life without parole. After all, every two years we can watch her getting her hair cut for Locks of Love.
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?
“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.”