[ArrogantBustard]

but 1 juror thowing a wrench into the 11 doesnt seem right.

The independant, free, fully informed jury is our last, best peaceful defense against domestic tyranny. One juror can prevent a grave injustice. It's not perfect, and it sometimes renders results I disagree with, but the alternatives are worse.

I don't agree with these folks' decision, but I have walked a mile or two in their moccasins. You'll hear no second guessing from this corner.

[No Blue States]

"The independant, free, fully informed jury is our last, best peaceful defense against domestic tyranny."

I appreciate Your view. But what of the tyranny of one juror negating the decision of 11? Oh well, He will get his in another trial or in the pen.

[Congressman Billybob]

Sure, the jury system is one of the protections built into our Constitution. BUT, the jury as it existed when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, did NOT include the imposition of sentence.

It was the job of the jury to decide whether or not the defendant was guilty. After that, it was the job of the judge to impose the appropriate penalty as procided by law. That's the way it was, until the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution.

It does no violence to the protections of the jury system in the Constitution to say that the Malvo sentencing decision should NEVER have gone to the jury. Their job was done when they handed in the verdict of guilty of two counts of capital murder.

John / Billybob

[recalcitrant]

Their families, no doubt, have been threatened by the "peaceful muslims" living amongst us. You know, the farrakhan types?