4 ms·

> But I can't reach the certainty I'd want for the death penalty There is a degree of certainty required for a conviction. It is up to the jury to only decide

> But I can't reach the certainty I'd want for the death penalty There is a degree of certainty required for a conviction. It is up to the jury to only decide if that degree of certainty has been reached. It is up to the judge to determine the sentence. I make this point as the US justice system is set up explicitly so that the jury is not considering the sentencing, but only guilty or not guilty. This removes the rorscach test from the jurors consideration.

blendergeek 2y ago
In Missouri (as in most US States with capital punishment), the death penalty must separately be approved by the jury after the jury convicts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Sentencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Un...
- seadan83 2y ago
  Interesting! Thank you for the additional information. Would it be fair to call this an aberration in the US justice system? Namely that except for death penalty cases, that my previous comment holds? I generally viewed that distinction of guilt finding vs punishment selection as fundamental. This is food for thought -thank you.
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    The death penalty is unique, in that the crime must be convicted, death chosen as the punishment, and then a second jury formed to actually decide if death is warranted in this case given the guilt.
kelnos 2y ago
In addition to what the sibling commenter said about extra approval, also consider that in many places the prospective jurors is told up-front that the death penalty is on the table, and jury candidates who are not ok with that are dismissed. So I'd expect that if possible punishments weren't discussed beforehand, you'd end up with a jury that doesn't support the death penalty quite as much. And in that jury you'd be more likely to find someone who might believe the defendant is guilty, but vote to acquit because they don't believe their crime merits death, but are pretty sure that that's what the sentence would end up being if convicted. And in that jury you might even find someone who is opposed to the death penalty entirely, and vote to acquit for the same reasons.

blendergeek 2y ago

In Missouri (as in most US States with capital punishment), the death penalty must separately be approved by the jury after the jury convicts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Sentencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Un...

seadan83 2y ago
Interesting! Thank you for the additional information. Would it be fair to call this an aberration in the US justice system? Namely that except for death penalty cases, that my previous comment holds? I generally viewed that distinction of guilt finding vs punishment selection as fundamental. This is food for thought -thank you.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  The death penalty is unique, in that the crime must be convicted, death chosen as the punishment, and then a second jury formed to actually decide if death is warranted in this case given the guilt.

kelnos 2y ago

In addition to what the sibling commenter said about extra approval, also consider that in many places the prospective jurors is told up-front that the death penalty is on the table, and jury candidates who are not ok with that are dismissed. So I'd expect that if possible punishments weren't discussed beforehand, you'd end up with a jury that doesn't support the death penalty quite as much. And in that jury you'd be more likely to find someone who might believe the defendant is guilty, but vote to acquit because they don't believe their crime merits death, but are pretty sure that that's what the sentence would end up being if convicted. And in that jury you might even find someone who is opposed to the death penalty entirely, and vote to acquit for the same reasons.