This [filtered word] chose to kill innocent people in cold blood to avoid prosecution and 12 jurors couldn't return the favor? Something is very wrong with this picture.
ATLANTA --- A jury's inability to condemn courthouse gunman Brian Nichols to death has re-energized efforts by Georgia lawmakers to allow a judge to consider capital punishment even if there's no unanimous verdict, as a growing chorus of officials says it's time to give the policy another look.
Mr. Nichols was sentenced Saturday to life in prison without parole after a jury did not deliver a unanimous death sentence for the murders of four people. Minutes after the sentencing, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard was among the first to call for a revived effort to tweak the death penalty rules.
"There should be some consideration of non-unanimous verdicts so that the minority of people that don't consider death won't get a chance to decide the outcome," he said at an emotional post-trial news conference.
He and other policymakers say the Nichols case could become a rallying cry for legislation aimed at preventing a "rogue" death penalty opponent on a jury from sabotaging a capital case.
"Without question you'll see that bill come back," said state Rep. David Ralston, who leads a key House judiciary committee. "People are very concerned whether jurors are being truthful about their feelings about the death penalty, and whether they are really committed to following the law."
Twice in the past two years, the House passed proposals to allow judges to impose a death sentence if one or two jurors vote against it. Both times the plan was defeated in the Senate, where it faced fierce opposition from GOP attorneys who warned it would put life-or-death decisions in the hands of a judge instead of a jury.
Yet some opponents say changes to the death penalty rules are worth another look.
"This case has rocked Georgia's criminal justice system. When you have a case where this much money is spent, this much time, it does beg the question if the system is operating properly," said state Sen. Preston Smith, a Rome Republican who voted against the bill in March. "I think we're going to take a hard look at it."
Mr. Smith, who leads the Senate's judiciary committee, added: "This case has been a poster child for why there needs to be reform in the system."
Georgia law has long required that death sentences be returned only by unanimous jury verdicts. If even one of the 12 jurors will not support a sentence of death, a judge must decide whether to sentence a defendant to life in prison, with or without the possibility of parole.
Superior Court Judge James Bodiford was forced to make that choice Saturday after the Nichols jury deadlocked at 9-3, with nine in favor of the death penalty and the other three in favor of life without parole.
After the sentencing, the prosecutor said jurors had told him the three holdouts refused to deliberate and were adamantly against the death penalty.
Critics worry that changing the rules would lead to longer, costlier appeals and upend centuries of established legal tradition.
"We can't change the rules every time something happened that people didn't like," said Stephen Bright, a prominent death penalty opponent who heads the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights.
"If you have to convince everyone, the dynamic is that everybody has to listen to everybody. If you have less than unanimous juries, then you just take a vote," he said. "One of the beauties of the system is it requires everybody to respond."
FLEMING WANTS LAW CHANGED
State Rep. Barry Fleming, a Harlem Republican who sponsored the two failed efforts to change the unanimity requirement, said the Nichols case shows that state laws must keep up with a changing society.
"We're in a day and age when people get on a jury and they'll say they will vote for a death penalty, but simply won't do it. That has to be accounted for," he said. "To give the judge the option in these terrible cases is the right thing to do. There ought to be a safety valve."
-- Associated Press
Comments
This [filtered word] chose to kill innocent people in cold blood to avoid prosecution and 12 jurors couldn't return the favor? Something is very wrong with this picture.
Maybe the Feds will fry him. I personally think he should have been hanged in Atlanta.
I agree dickworth1 ! I wonder if it's prosecutable? However, I also agree with the sentence because the death penalty isn't executed for over twenty years at a cost of over $20million. If the convict is obviously guilty, change the law and let the judge kill him in the courtroom. Well, that may be a little radical, but execution within the week, for a case like the Nichols' case where there is no doubt of guilt, is certainly within reason. Personally, I don't see the death penalty as the problem, but the way it's carried out.
The whole thing is wrong. It ought to only require two thirds of the jury to be in agreement for it to be carried out. I don't like the idea of one person (the judge) making the final decision.
Hold on. This is but one case, albeit an extreme one. Execution within a week? What about those who were convicted, sentenced and later found to be innocent through scientific advances and/or newly discovered evidence. I agree there are cases where the death penalty is justified. However, no way do I want that power given to one person. So what is the answer? I don't know. I do know that if just one wrongly convicted person is executed, it is a tragedy.
Dick..that would not hold up in court because all the accused would have to say was: Well I was for the dealth penalty untill I had to be the one to choose to take a mans life. That's all one would need to say. He could not be prosecuted for perjury unless the district attorney had witness to testify against him stating he perjured himself intentionally & deliberatly. It's not against the law to change ones mind especially when faced with taking anothers life is on the line....Oh and so theres no misunderstanding I strongly agreed with the Death Penalty & especially in this case. There should be no problem in anyones mind to kill this trash but low & behold our citizens that can't put this guy to death, I hope they have a family killed then we'll see them change their mind. Is that cruel of me to say? If it is it's not as cruel as it is for the jurors to not deliver the proper sentence. There is no doubt in this mans case My God it happened in the court room. Our lawmakers do need to take it from the jury they can not be trusted to deliver the proper sentence..little babies that can't do the right thing!
People refuse to speak the truth, it's a fact everyone needs to accept: There are a lot of people in the United States & the World that needs to be put to death. Law abiding citizens should not have to worry about such monsters in our society. Some people just deserve to die... simple. United States has more murders than any othe country WHY? Criminals do not fear our judicial system, they know that it doesn't matter what they do they have a great chance of getting away because our courts are a joke. Justice..It's for the rich & criminally inclined.
All states should adopt the stand that Texas has taken.
The holdouts said from the start that they oppose the death penalty. They should never have been allowed to sit on a death penalty case but if they were stricken it would have been appealed. That's the problem, appeal after appeal
I think that life in prison with no chance of parole is far worst than the death penalty. He could be put to death and wake up in Glory. Have you considered that? HELLO HELLO
The current death penalty system is fine the way it is. We shouldn't bastardize the system. It should take ALL 12 jurors to hand down the death sentence -- not 11 or 10 or 7 or 1. If 12 jurors can't agree, then it is what it is.
Do anyone want their tax dollars going to waste on appeal after appeal? We already have enough problems as it is with our money. Permanently scrap this proposal that Fleming supports.
The justice system is broke. If given the death sentence, a person can be on death row for 20-25 years, with millions spent on courts, lawyers, appeals and the cost of caring for the criminal. The laws needs to be rewritten and only allow a very limited number of appeals and set a limit to the time a person has to appeal. Why not one appeal and one year limit. This would keep death row cleaner and reduce the amount of money taxpayers have to pay. Setup a special court to process these cases. If the laws are not rewritten, then the death sentence should be eliminated and all given life in prison with no chance for release and no appeals.
They need to be put to death within a week of sentencing.
the man should be put to death, he was facing a rape conviction when he shot and killed those people, he does not deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison on taxpayer money, kill the idiot
How many years have passed since the killings? Think of the money we have wasted jailing and trying this waste of human flesh that may have been spent helping someone who actually deserved help. Now we look forward to paying to house him in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life. At our expense. If we can't execute someone with video evidence and eyewitness accounts of multiple murders , we don't stand much of a chance.
Saudi (Wahhabi Islam) justice works. The death penalty (public beheading) is carried out w/in a week after Friday prayers. Crime rate in Saudi is much lower than the US.
I don't mind so much sentencing him to life in prison ... but it should be the jail in Arizona run by the sheriff who feeds prisoners baloney sandwichs in tents when it is 120 degrees in the shade.
Insert the needle and let the juice flow- this career criminal has cost the taxpayers enough during his sorry life.
Why was this man tried? The judge witnessed him kill four people. Everyone in the courtroom witnessed him kill four people. He should have been put to death THEN. I have a better idea. Put him in an eight by eight cell with the three idiots that wouldn't sentence him to death, KNOWING he killed four people, and tell him, he can go free, after he beats the life out of those three idiots.
Once again, Blind Justice is forced to GUM the life out of a scumbag. WHEN WILL JUSTICE GET HER TEETH BACK?
jack jack jack...not only is that a silly statement but you don't seem to be able to post a comment without using: HELLO HELLO..you have a 178 pages of past comments posted. I just looked at the last 2 pages & out of 20 different post..(18) of them HAD..HELLO HELLO...in them...Thank you I needed a good laugh today so I wanted to be the first to say ..THANK YOU...THANK YOU...LOL...LMAO
I'm voting for you as character of year 2008..I had to take another peek & looked at another 3 entire pages of post & you gave us another 20 post of...??? well I don't want to say it again but I'm sure you will..lol
Palimino9, I agree with you. It is different when you apprend someone at a later date. There could be a mistake but when it is on video tape in the courtroom and the person is apprended right at the scene with the gun in hand it is very very different and no doubt as to the who commited the crime. Wrong decision by the jury.
Well, some like everything just as it is and some want to change the system and all points of view in between. I'd say this subject got full coverage.
All of you that are mad should be mad at the prosecutor. It's his job to prove his case and get the death penalty he is seeking. He didn't get it, so it's his fault...not the juries. HE picked the jury.
District Attorney Paul Howard said he has spoken with U.S. attorneys about a possible death penalty trial against Nichols in federal court for the killing of the off-duty federal agent.http://www.wsbtv.com/news/18254413/detail.html
Justus4 you are no better than the lowest form of a nasty animal if you actually believe what you posted. I might remind you this brother animal killed your SISTA or is it OK to kill just anybodt to get back at the MAN.
justus, it has nothing to do with "killing more minorities" it has to do with putting to death someone who greatly deserves the death penalty. If the death penalty isn't for this guy then who is it for?
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
