5 ms·

I feel like at that point, it'd be morally correct to lie to get into the jury...

• davrosthedalek 9y ago
  My English might fail me here, but if you think about a 20 year sentence and find it not adequate to the crime, wouldn't you have "considered" it? I can understand why the question is asked though. The jury is there to find facts, i.e. define what has happened. The judge will then find the "correct" sentence if found guilty. The jury should not be swayed to a not guilty finding if they believe a guilty would be correct, just because the possible maximum sentence is too long, even if it would not be imposed in the case at hand anyway.
  • mikeash 9y ago
    Virginia is unique here. Juries perform sentencing, not just finding of guilt. That’s why they asked the question.
    • davrosthedalek 9y ago
      Interesting. It certainly brings the risk of vengeful sentencing. But that brings me back to my original question: Would they have lied if they would have said "I would consider 20 years", already having made up their mind about it?
      • mikeash 9y ago
        I may not be quoting the lawyer exactly, and there’s probably specialized legal meaning as well. The net result, at least as I understood it, was that they were asking if we would be able to consider the full range of sentences after having seen all the evidence and heard all the testimony. Basically, trying to screen out people who have already made up their minds, like they might try to screen out people who have already decided that the accused is guilty.
• mikeash 9y ago
  I was hoping that my discussion of how absurd that sentence was might influence the jurors who actually made it on.