Of course, this bill would only apply to minorities.
If Brian Nichols doesn't deserve the death penalty, then who does?
If the state of Georgia can't execute a man who went on a Fulton County Courthouse shooting spree, murdering four people in cold blood, including a judge and court reporter, then why have a capital punishment law at all?
Only three of the 12-member Nichols jury opposed sentencing the brutal killer to die -- and that was enough to convert his term to a lifetime of free room, board and medical care at taxpayer expense. State law requires a death penalty verdict be unanimous; when it's not, the judge hands down a life sentence behind bars, which is what Nichols got.
This wasn't the first time a handful of jurors -- indeed, sometimes only one juror -- has, perhaps with forethought, prevented a well-deserved death penalty from being carried out.
The Georgia Legislature has considered several bills in recent years to allow a death verdict when the jury vote is less than unanimous. Spearheaded by tough-on-crime proponents such as former state Rep. Barry Fleming, R-Harlem, one such measure that passed the House in 2007 and again this year would allow a death sentence with an 11-1 vote, a 10-2 vote or a 9-3 vote, as happened in the Nichols case.
The House bill, however, failed in the Senate. There is hope the issue will be reconsidered in the next session.
No way is the system operating properly when jurors can get away with lying to the court that they're not opposed to the death penalty when they clearly are.
Yes, you have to conclude the three holdouts on the Nichols jury lied. They wouldn't even deliberate with the other jurors on sentencing. Ideological opposition to capital punishment is the only reason they could possibly have for doing that.
What other reason could there be?
It couldn't be because they thought Nichols may not be guilty. A host of witnesses saw him go on his murder spree and he even admitted to it himself.
Might it be because the crime wasn't serious enough to warrant death? No, that won't wash. The murder of four people couldn't be more heinous.
How about his civil rights? Were they violated because he's black? That doesn't pass muster either. There's no evidence to suggest the legal system would have treated a white murder suspect any differently than it treated him.
The last possible reason a juror might exempt Nichols from the death sentence -- though it's a stretch -- is that the killings were a first offense. Well, that's not true either. Nichols had been in and out of trouble with the law, and was being escorted to his trial on rape charges when he overpowered a female guard and seized her firearm, which he used on his killing spree.
Obviously, the three jurors refused to join in even considering the death sentence because they are death penalty foes. There's nothing wrong with opposing the death penalty -- except when you're called as a potential juror in a death penalty case -- where you are asked under oath whether you can vote to condemn a guilty man.
At least something good will come out of the horrendous Nichols verdict if the General Assembly next year finally passes a bill that will allow for less-than-unanimous verdicts in death penalty sentencing.
Jurors must stop being allowed to subvert justice by bringing their own agendas to the jury room.
Comments
Of course, this bill would only apply to minorities.
I know Georgia has a hit man floating around the prisons. Can't they just put him in the same prison as Nichols and let them have an encounter? Voila!, no appeals.
shivas of course you're right. We have never sentenced anyone but minorities to death here in the US. We really don't let non minorities go to prison. We send them somewhere nice like the Cayman Islands and ask them not to come home until there sentence is up. We pay all their expense while they are there. Shivas, my friend, it may be time for you to stop posting here. You are an embarassment to hard working, honest, law abiding citizens of any color.
I well remember a few years ago when people like Ralph Reid and Pat Robertson encouraged Christian conservatives with far right political agendas to run for local offices as "stealth candidates." Stealth candidates lied about their real political views, their affiliations, and their supporters, then if elected tried to put their radical agendas into law.
You conservatives were all for the lying since "the cause was morally right." Anti-death penalty folks are the latest "stealth candidates," concealing their views to get on juries in capital cases. They believe their cause is morally right. Conservatives, your chickens are coming home to roost!
Potential jurors who lie to get on a jury panel should face perjury charges with a penalty that would make them think twice about the decision they make.
"...then why have capital punishment at all." Chronicle, you hit the nail on the head. You speak of taxpayer expense for free room and board, but fail to mention the greater expense imposed by the appeals process. The dirty little secret held close by death penalty advocates is that, because of the lengthy, mandatory appeals process involved in DP cases, it actually costs taxpyers *less* to incarcerate a man for life. Add to that the questionable morality of eye-for-an-eye punishment, and it's a wonder conservatives still support it.
The South has been known to execute innocent people. Maybe that is why Georgia has a unanimous rule. The rule should stay as is. It should take ALL 12 jurors to send someone to death row. It is the prosecutor's fault -- he and his office selected the three holdouts.
Correct, Jim Christian. That is something that death penalty supporters NEVER want to deal with. Money coming out of our pockets to support Nichols's appeals if he was on death row. Three jurors saved us a lot of money.
People with ideological opposition to the death penalty have every right to make a judgement about their fellow citizens by serving on juries in death penalty cases. That they're even barred in the first place is a joke. It perverts the very idea of democracy.
ok willistown. Let's see facts where you claim innocent people have been executed. I mean undeniable facts too. Not rhetoric and impeachable testimony.
There was one case in Virginia a few years back. And I know that there are more.
The only upside to Nichols verdict is now he'll spend the rest of his life being someone else's girlfriend. He should have fried.
Details. Case name? You can't throw that kind of statement out without facts to back it up.
Nice try, ForHim (or is it ForHer???), but proving perjury would be almost impossible in most cases. No, you're going to have to change the law so a plurality of jurors can vote the death penalty. I know you and your fellow
holier-than-thou blood-lust types are all too anxious to move the U.S. up on the list of nations with the most legal executions. We're just ahead of Iraq, but still trail China (#1), Iran (#2), Saudi Arabia (#3), and Pakistan (#4). That's a group of nations we can really be proud to be a part of!
But we can do better. Just a few more legal killings and America can be Number One!
Why can't the three jurors who lied about not opposing the death penalty be charged with perjury? Hand that down a couple of times and you will see a lot less hung juries or non-death penalty verdicts.
Of course willistontownsc will not give details or case names. That would require him/her to be honest instead of just hateful and racist as usual. And to effete elitist liberal. If we stop abortion, the number of legal killings would drop significantly and probably put us near the bottom. I suppose you support killing innocent people, but let the murderers go. I'll never understand this POV.
EEL, you are so full of chit.
Willietown, you get more stupid by the post. Ya' think there have been no innocent people convicted and sentenced to death? You ever been outside Williston? SC? I doubt it. BTW, ever get your trailor tied down?
jack: think about it: the juror will have sworn that he or she would consider the death penalty if convinced the situation warranted it.
In a later perjury trial, the defendant would NEVER admit he / she lied, but instead would claim the situation didn't warrant it. Even if that claim is preposterous given the facts of a particular case, the prosecution will never be able to prove perjury. That is to say, the argument that any reasonable person would conclude the death penalty was justified is not legally sufficient to prove perjury. Irrationality does not legally equal lying.
SisterAbdullahX: you of course just try to change the subject. What is your response to THE FACT that the U.S. legal execution rate puts it in the middle of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq. What is it we have in common with those countries when it comes to executions? Try answering the question directly for once....if you have the guts.
NO....I didn't change the subject.....You claimed the subject was legal killing. Abortion is legal killing.......of the innocent. Execution is legal killing of dangerous murderers. How do you rationalize that? THE FACT that US legal execution rate is around the same as that of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq says that at least they are doing something right. It is a pitiful attempt of yours to try to bemoan the US by using a statistic that has nothing to do with anything, but it is what we have come to expect from you. And as for not being able to prove perjury because you can't tell what the juror was thinking....the same goes for so called "hate crimes."
Try directly answering why it's ok to kill innocent children, but not convicted murderers EEL....Try answering that question directly for once....if you have the guts. And it figures that justus4 would defend the murderer. I wonder why?
SAX: I gave up long ago trying to have any reasonable discussions with people who bring up abortion no matter what the subject, and I won't with you. I am definitely NOT a Neal Boortz fan--he's basically become a shill for conservatives-- but I do understand why he flat refuses to let callers on his show who want to talk about abortion. When pro-lifers lie to Boortz's screeners and he finds out, he hangs up on them as rudely as possible. He knows what I know: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY! And creepy too. By the way, on the perjury issue, you seem to agree with me that what the defendant was thinking is almost impossible to determine. Thanks, I knew I was right!
eel, how are you. I do not approve of the death penalty either. But, just because Boortz doesn't agree with you on issues, say, like personal responsibility, why does that make him a "shill"? He would be a shill if he didn't believe what he was saying, right? Whether you like him or not, IMO, he is no phoney.
Typical leftist dodge. Since EEL can't answer the question without looking idiotic he/she refuses to have a reasonable discussion. Killing is killing, but you seem think it's ok if the victim is innocent, but not if the victim is deserving of punishment. And YES... do agree that it is impossible to determine what the defendant was thinking....so what is your opinion on "hate crimes?"
Of course innocent people have been executed that is why they want the death penalty he killed innocent folks who were also tax payers who contribute to society and aren't just a worthless piece of protoplasm and a burden to society. But the death penalty would be wrong- just like abortion. Then again I support abortion so hang em high. I wouldn't want to be a hypocrit.
justus - How can you begin to defend the actions of a man who killed four people in cold-blood??? Three of whom were just doing their jobs, and one who was just renovating his flipping house!!! You're disgusting, and someone needs to slap your mama because you were NOT raised right.
I strongly suspect that Justus4 supports this murderer for the same reason he supports nearly everyone that he supports. Just click his name at the bottom of his post, read a few of his posts and you will see a pattern emerge.
Of course Justus defends this murderer and rapist. Whats funny about Justus is had Nichols been white, he'd be arguing on the opposite side of this discussion. Justus was that person in the office or at school that was jumping up and down obnoxiously when they read the NOT GUILTY verdict for OJ's murder trial back in the 90s.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
