I'm fine with the majority rules idea but if we give the judge the option, why do we need a jury?
Regarding the AP article in The Augusta Chronicle on Sunday, Dec 14, in Metro, page 5B, "(State Representative Barry) Fleming Wants Law Changed": He is right on target in wanting the death penalty law changed. I and many others completely agree with him.
He hit the nail on the head in that when many people get on a jury and say they will vote for a death penalty, they simply won't do it.
I have been so disgusted for many years with jurors who voted the wrong way in obvious verdicts, and cannot be held accountable.
If Nichols doesn't deserve the death penalty then who does? I commend the 9 jurors in the Nichols case who voted for the death penalty. It was the right thing to do.
For years I have thought the jury unanimity law is outdated and ridiculous, but did not know what to do about it or how to proceed to change it.
The law needs to be changed. I suggest it be changed to "majority rules" instead of the unanimity requirement, and "give the judge the option" as Fleming stated.
I hope that he will continue the effort to get this current law changed. He is on a well deserved and past due cause.
I commend him for his work in addressing this issue.
L. Frank Allen
Augusta
Comments
I'm fine with the majority rules idea but if we give the judge the option, why do we need a jury?
Instead of "a simple majority rules", I would like it to be a "two thirds majority rules". On a jury of 12, 8 out of the 12 would still carry. Isn't that what is required in the US Senate to over ride a veto or to stop a filibuster? I do not favor giving the judge the power to decide. What were the rules for the case where the woman sued a fast food chain when she spilled hot coffee on herself and received a large settlement? If the unanimity rule applied there and I had been on that jury, she would not have received a red cent!
In regard to the McDonald coffee burn case, here are some little known facts of that case: McDonald sold its coffee at 180-190 degrees (typically our coffee at home is 135-140). Coffee at that temperature causes 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. McDonald's admitted they knew of the dangers for more than 10 years at the time of this accident. The woman had 3rd degree burns on 16% of her body, was hospitalized for 8 days and received skin grafting. Read the facts the jury heard and then tell us she would not have received a red cent.
https://www.centerjd.org/archives/issues-facts/stories/MB_mcdonalds.php
I see that now that it's one of their own it's important. When it was just us little peons getting murdered it was ok. Elitists on the bench. As far as the Mcdonalds case goes, any idiot that holds a styrofoam cup of coffee between their legs is not all there.
Majority rules would be the way to go. Even in elections, there's no need to win by over 50% of the vote. Look at the money it would save by not requiring special election runoff. Some states use a coin toss to decide the winner in close elections on the local level.
The unanimous rule is exactly what is needed in death penalty cases. Like I posted on Sunday, it should take ALL 12 jurors to impose a death sentence. Not 11, 10, 7, or 1. For a conviction, however, it should be a majority rule.
What is needed now is to charge those jurors who tell the court that they do not oppose the death penalty and then say they couldn't because of "conscience", should be charged with perjury.
Majority Rules....Get the Laws Changed ASAP.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
