Big Time Moral Dilemma.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see what "wrong" you, as the jury, perpetuated.

You did your job. Now, hopefully, the judge will do hers.

You did what was right--and as AspieUtah pointed out, it was within the law. To introduce "past bad deeds" would have created a "double-jeopardy" element to the whole thing. "Double-jeopardy" is specifically banned by the Constitution.

This is really a hard thing for me to do...because I've been a crime victim, and I don't like criminals too much. But I would advocate giving somebody who has "served his/her time" the benefit of the doubt as to what his/her future holds.

Now, I must admit: possessing methamphetamine is not something which evokes a feeling of "giving a fellow the benefit of the doubt."

However, ideally, our legal system is predicated upon that principle--upon the principle of "the person has served his/her time. Why must we punish this person more--by not offering him/her the chance to reform his/her ways?"

OanaO

The only reason to pled guilty to first degree murder, with a gun during a robbery, is to avoid the death penalty.

You say he is on parole till 2099, and this from 1984, so he got 115 years. He did not get "life Without Parole."

That is still another deal as you mention he did a short time for domestic, no robbery, guns, murder.

Now he is down to crimes against himself. He would deserve more time for drinking and driving. Putting others at risk.

Felons are not allowed to have guns, knives are not covered.

Reality, 600,000 are released from prison every year. Almost all will be released. You have to be Hannibal Lector to get forever. The worst get out in twenty, some go right back to killing, some go kill those that testified against them. The vast majority say I want nothing more to do with prison. They go on to lead normal lives.

25,000 people get murdered every year. The conviction rate is low. Almost all of them will be released.

Of the not found and convicted, maybe 10,000 a year get away with murder. Many serial killers get away for many years. We had three recent ones captured, and at least two more active in Louisiana.

Of those who got away with it, over twenty years there are several hundred thousand running around.

Of those who got caught, served twenty years, over a half million, on lifetime parole.

So looking at this guy, he downsized his crime, pled guilty, and is almost an upstanding citizen.

Not that I trust upstanding citizens, a Doctor up your way left dead girls in ditches for twenty years, upstanding citizens can get away with murder.

The punishment should fit the crime, in this case possession of meth. You did the right thing.

You all did as you were instructed as jurors with the information given to you as jurors.

It wasnt your job, indeed it would have been a crime, to be a vigilante and convict him for other crimes that you were not even supposed to be trying him for.

So I don't see the problem.

Reflecting back I feel we were able to truly do something that never occurred in his life before, treat him fairly and without prejudice so I feel we did our job and we did it well and if a one day trial was the only way to accomplish that, it's understandable. I feel a lot more confident about it now than I did when I first posted this. Thanks for all of your help.

keeping prior convictions and paroles in mind is up to the judge.

the job of the jury is to reach a verdict on this one crime, and this one crime alone, in a vacuum.
you did your job, you reached a verdict on this crime (set). there is a reason you are not allowed to know anything about the suspect; the moral dilemma is the judges'