Pro-capital-punishment jury sought

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | May 26, 2002 | Alex Roth

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Sounds like the prosecution has already decided the outcome and it's a matter of finding people who will agree. The defense doesn't seem to be interesting in playing this game pre-trial. I'm betting they've got a few surprises in store.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I'm afraid I agree. I've watched the body language and the glances exchanged between Westerfield and the VDs in the preliminary hearings. There's something secret there and I hope it comes out at the trial.

[Lauratealeaf]

Interesting because I do not think in shades of grey..and I do not think the man is guilty (unless there is LOTS we have not heard yet!)

I'm with you on that!

[Jerry_M]

While I agree with you that the Biblical standards you presented are required, I have wondered whether they require actual, eye witnesses.

In other words, does the presence of a rapist's DNA, properly tested and testified to by an expert witness meet the Biblical standard of "witness"? Likewise, does the presence of fibers from a murder victim's clothing, discovered in the automobile trunk of the alleged murderer, and properly tested and testified to by an expert witness qualify as a Biblical "witness"? Same for fingerprints, and other scientifically valid forensic evidence.

I am inclined to say that this type of scientific evidence does qualify as meeting that Scriptural standard, but recognizing that these tests did not exist in Moses' day I am disinclined to be more definitive in my answer. For example, I do not know whether I could vote for the death penalty in a case that hinged entirely on this type of evidence without supporting eye witness testimony. I do believe that I could find a person guilty, and sentence them to life without parole, but don't know if I could actually vote to have that person executed.

Your thoughts? (Or better yet, Scripture that I may have overlooked.)

[RnMomof7]

It creeped me out thinking that this same man was the one with whom I had been conversing that fateful Friday night. He seemed really nice and even offered to give my girlfriend a ride home that night and to buy us drinks, which we both declined.

IF DW had planned to take the little girl that night, why would he offered to take someone home?

[MizSterious]

I think he was looking for WOMEN that night, not little girls.

[Jaded]

Oh you bet. From the begining of the PH, Dusek & Co. have complained about Feldman/Westerfield exercising his right to a speedy trial. Then a couple of weeks ago there was the article about 2 DX cases that went to trial quickly and lost. Now this. If prosecution has such a lock why are they using these tactics? There are still too many missing puzzle pieces. I don't think any of us will like the looks of the remaining pieces or the names on them should the truth be revealed.

[fnord]

I have long thought we need random jury selection. But the only way it would work is to allow majority decisions, rather than unanimous. I doubt you could get 12 of 12 random people to agree that the sun came up this morning (think jury-nullification). Having a sliding scale for different crimes (8/12 for lesser crimes, 10/12 for serious crimes, etc.) might bring more justice back to the system.

And the dumbest thing I see is trying to pick a jury of people who have no knowledge of the case! Just what we need, a group of people who either don't have a clue what is happening around them or have a propensity for lying outright.

[fnord]

as long as they have a TV and watch Springer and Oprah, I reckon they are well-informed ...

[RnMomof7]

I think he was looking for WOMEN that night, not little girls.

I agree.

[RnMomof7]

a simple majority negates the "no reasonable doubt"

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

While I agree with you that the Biblical standards you presented are required, I have wondered whether they require actual, eye witnesses. In other words, does the presence of a rapist's DNA, properly tested and testified to by an expert witness meet the Biblical standard of "witness"? Likewise, does the presence of fibers from a murder victim's clothing, discovered in the automobile trunk of the alleged murderer, and properly tested and testified to by an expert witness qualify as a Biblical "witness"? Same for fingerprints, and other scientifically valid forensic evidence. I am inclined to say that this type of scientific evidence does qualify as meeting that Scriptural standard, but recognizing that these tests did not exist in Moses' day I am disinclined to be more definitive in my answer. For example, I do not know whether I could vote for the death penalty in a case that hinged entirely on this type of evidence without supporting eye witness testimony. I do believe that I could find a person guilty, and sentence them to life without parole, but don't know if I could actually vote to have that person executed. Your thoughts? (Or better yet, Scripture that I may have overlooked.)

It's a good question. For myself, I would tend to favor a restriction of the Death Penalty in capital cases to cases where the "two Eye-Witnesses" requirement could be fulfilled. Absent eye-witness testimony, Life Indenturement (I prefer work-camps to prisons) would be my preference. In short, I've ended up about where you are... I think you do have to punish someone who is proven Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and I favor the Death Penalty; but I don't support the employment of the Death Penalty in cases where eye-witness testimony has not been brought forward.

[Karson]

He seemed really nice and even offered to give my girlfriend a ride home that night and to buy us drinks, which we both declined.

I really have to say this since I've been thinking it the whole time. Why did Brenda and friends accept drinks from DW if they weren't interested in having anything at all to do with him? They could have said "No, thank you."

hmmmmm

[RnMomof7]

I like it the way it is..If everyone sitting there can not agree on the evidence seems the best result to let him go..I would however allow a new trial if more evidence were discovered.So a modified systen of double jeopardy would be OK with me

[skipjackcity]

"But broad generalities are often misleading. When it comes to picking jurors, most lawyers simply trust their gut."...I don't see this death-penalty bias as being pro-prosecution or pro-defense. I am the most pro-death penalty guy I know, and I wouldn't convict him on what I have seen so far. They need more than what has been revealed to garner a death penaly.

[mommya]

I really have to say this since I've been thinking it the whole time. Why did Brenda and friends accept drinks from DW if they weren't interested in having anything at all to do with him? They could have said "No, thank you."

I agree.

Before I became a mom - back when I had a social life - sometimes a guy would want to buy a drink for me or one of my friends - I'm talking a stranger or maybe someone who I'd just met - anyway - I'd maybe accept one - but then I'd feel like I owed them something - like time and pleasant conversation - so a friendly decline was to me the best approach. On the other hand - I do have one male friend in particular who is always buying drinks for friends - men and women alike - he's just that way - a really nice guy - but sometimes I even feel guilty when I know he's forked out some cash on my account - even though I've known him forever and I know he doesn't expect anything in return - if you know what I mean. I also know a couple of gals who I consider to be users - by that I mean that they will gladly accept drinks, dinner, whatever from men (or women for that matter) and feel no sort of commitment to that person at all - not even reciprocating that other person's gesture with nice conversation. I hate those kind of people - that may have been how Brenda and her friends were. Or else she may have known Westerfield better than we know - like me and my male friend who likes to buy the drinks.

I don't know if I made much sense just now - but I've got it boiled down to: Brenda's a user - or - she's friendlier with Westerfield than we know - or - she was willing to reciprocate Westerfield's nice gesture with some gesture of her own.