Tell me this is a misprint!

I

i_am_Lois

Member
Today I was reading the news about the upcoming trial for James Holmes (for the Aurora theater shooting).

I don't even want to get into a discussion that after his arrest about 2 years ago, and still no trial yet, how incredibly slow this case is moving!!

My shock today was reading this about the case:

At Thursday's hearing, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Carlos Samour set the start of the trial for Oct. 14. That is when the first batch of the 6,000 prospective jurors set to be summoned for the case — one of the largest jury calls in U.S. history — will arrive for the first phase of jury selection.

Are they kidding? Do they really intend on calling 6,000 people to the stand, swear them in, and ask them questions... one person at a time, so they can seat 12 jurors and 12 alternates? Do they really require that enormous number... 6,000 people... to find 24 eligible souls to be jurors? HOW LONG WILL THAT TAKE? It's mind boggling how overboard the system becomes with these notorious criminal cases. Oh, and one last question... what will this end up costing the tax payers?


​
 

No, specifically for this case. I really want to know which government is funding this trial.
Is it murder which I presume is a state jurisdiction or something like terrorism which could be federal crime?
 
State trial. They won't question 6000 potential juriors. 6000 is the availavble number from which to choose potential juriors, perhaps 60 to 200 or more, to pick their 24 juriors.
 
It is anticipated to be very difficult finding unbiased jurors especially ones who are willing to consider the death penalty. They would have been better off if they chose another venue, one not so intimately and emotionally involved in the shootings.
 
the defense and prosecutor will look at the background and ask specific questions to the jurors background that may eliminate them from the pool. It could take as little as 24 depositions. One of the main issues that will be brought up by the defense and will be asked specific to each juror -- Do you think a person who is judged mentally incompetent should get the death penalty? (or some form thereof). This type of question goes around the issue of asking the juror whether the guy was crazy or not, allowing health professionals to do that. Most of the rejects will come from the defense.

A very interesting national side issue will be if the media makes another gun control event out of the trial, ignoring the mental health aspects. This will be watch very close. One reason for delaying the entire trial, until after the Nov. mid-term elections is to avoid this. Both gun control and the antis have very good reasons for getting this to national attention before the Mid-term elections.
 
Juries in this country simply decide guilty or not guilty. They have no part in the sentencing process although they may sometimes make a recommendation for clemency but it is always up to the judge to deliver the sentence and the non parole period. The prosecution and the defence lawyers may each challenge a certain number of prospective jurors but they know nothing about them, nor are they able to ask questions or do any background checks. Jury selection is pretty much a random process. Jurors names are replaced by numbers to protect them and preserve their anonymity.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Juries in this country simply decide guilty of not guilty. They have no part in the sentencing process although they may sometimes make a recommendation for clemency but it is always up to the judge to deliver the sentence and the non parole period. The prosecution and the defence lawyers may each challenge a certain number of prospective jurors but they know nothing about them, nor are they able to ask questions or do any background checks. Jury selection of pretty much a random process. Jurors names are replaced by numbers to protect them and preserve their anonymity.
Click to expand...

If there is the potential for a death penalty some jurors are reluctant to reach a guilty verdict.
 
some confusion I guess. In the US some states have a mandatory death penalty if the jury finds guilty, nothing to do with the judge, who for the most part in any case, simply makes sure certain procedures are followed.
From the way you have worded the comment I don't know if you are meaning that Aust. has abolished the death penalty, or the ability of the jury to interact in the sentencing. Most nation states or collections that have done away with the death penalty, under some misguided notion about being less of an animal than the perp. or something about not stopping the criminal act, completely ignore the feelings of the people that have been hurt by the incidence. In the Colorado case, I'm sure there are people lined up to pull the switch, without a second thought. the disposal of the criminal will be costly under the prison opposition, not so much in execution. Its not a question, --- something will be, if someone feels locking someone else in a cage without parole, and freedoms is more humanitarian (makes them feel more warm and fuzzy) than making sure they can't do the same thing again--- well that is a special kind of stupid.
The only real question is if the perp. was crazy in the legal definition. This affects how the judge must conduct the court. ie, what evidence can be introduced and in what manner. Sentencing can be done by legislative rule, ex. 3 strikes you are out. and usually done by a standard that is consistence with what is in current practice, or there will be an appeal based on "unusual punishment" etc.
The US has 5% of the worlds crime and 25% of the worlds prisoners, so the courts are extremely lenient in this sense. Very few countries could afford to be so forgiving, given the numbers we are looking at.
 
Sorry about the confusion rt3. We used to have the death penalty but abolished it some 60 years ago. For that reason juries don't have that concern when deciding guilt or otherwise. Sentencing has traditionally been the responsibility of the judge. Mandatory sentencing is not favoured although there are mandated minimum sentences for some offences.

We used to have the death penalty for rape but this gave the perpetrators a reason to kill their victims to avoid conviction. More women survived rape after this sentence was lifted.

Look at what is happening in India where violent rapes against women are prevalent. Police have been very lax about pursuing the perpetrators but recent high profile cases have stirred the authorities to do something, including death sentences. In the most recent case of gang rape, the two young victims were found hanged from a tree. I think it is a logical conclusion to make that a death penalty can actually lead to more murders being committed in certain circumstances.

What is needed in India is a change in their culture if the problem of violence against women is to be addressed. The USA probably needs to examine the cultural reasons behind the problem of mass murder by troubled young men that happen with distressing frequency. You can't execute them before they offend and they often seem to have a death wish anyway. Why do they do it? How are they able to get their hands on the means of mass destruction? I don't have the answers to these questions any more than I understand why India has such a low regard for women and girls but I guess that history has a lot to do with it. However I do believe that when the roots of a problem are identified, it is possible to work on creating a new history by working in the present. IMO the death penalty just sweeps problems under the carpet.
 
death penalty is not a criminal method for a social penalty, its clear cut retaliation. death penalties institutionalized by and sanctioned by governments is merely an attempt to take the "relief" out of the hands of the offended relatives and is just another means of gaining control by the state. this has always been the case, since the story of Can and Able. Those people who cannot gain relief, as they nether have the resources or Opted out because of some "better than thou attitude". This is why gangs come into being, to gain "justice". This is why almost every subculture has their own "death squad". Even governments have them, USA (seals) UK (sas) Israel (Moussed). It is doubtful the USA or any other country will examine "cultural" stuff even if it would make a difference. Any argument aimed at death penalty creating more deaths is slippery slope at best.
 
I'd prefer the word 'punishment' to 'retaliation' because I prefer 'justice' to 'revenge'.
Retaliation sounds to me like the primitive concept of 'payback' that exists in tribal societies.
It's very rough justice at best. In some less evolved societies when someone gets sick and dies, they look around for the sorcerer that caused the death and kill him/her. The family feels better but it is not just.

As civilised societies we must elevate justice above retaliation and revenge IMO.
If a society decides that the death penalty is a proper way to deal with certain crimes then it is very important to ensure that it is applied with the highest standards of justice, not just for the families but also for the accused. It is absolutely necessary to make sure that the accused really is guilty of the crime and neither mentally ill nor intellectually retarded to the point of not being responsible. They should also have the benefit of really good lawyers prepared to fight hard for their client.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by civilized society. If your talking about using drones to drop bombs from afar, or turning over your civil liberties to a central power structure so you don
t have to participate in the "punishment" and those bad guys will get "justice" I have to laugh. If you think someone killing a bunch of people with a gun, type of weapon is worse than say the soldiers that killed by "friendly fire" and throwing it into a context of mass destruction, I have to laugh. I worked in a mental institution for 5 years, and there is clearly a difference between the people who have mental problems because they were locked in a closet for most of their childhood (or a birth defect), and people who have mental problems because someone called them an ahole over the internet. It doesn't take a professional. The commission of the crime has nothing to do with being "guilty" they did or didn't. Even if they are incompetent to stand trial they are still guilty. Good Grief. Selecting the best course of action for society is the only question.
In the context of tribal law, the punishment dealt by the elders may be 100 times more Moral than a civilized society. Changing the words between payback, retaliation, or what ever, just makes people warm a fuzzy, ---- after all they are above those primitive instincts.
 
should mention that most of the shootings occur in what are called "Gun free Zones". This a big thing going on in the US, two more restaurants, Sonic, and Chilies, have announced they are "gun free". Naturally the bad guys will read these signs and not bring guns, because after all they are law abiding citizens (special kind of stupid on the restaurants). Also the restaurant managers will be notified by myself and others they will no longer be using their food services. Aside from this, and as a long time concealed gun carrier, some of the things I hear and read amaze me. I know a lot of other concealed carry people and we have talked about this on the internet etc. Anyway one argument-- is that "you people" (my group) just want to be heros, etc, use your gun etc. Why I would want to save a bunch of people who have opted out of defending themselves is beyond me. In addition to the legal problems involved nobody would know who the bad guys were (including myself or another carry), and especially the police who tend to think of anyone having a gun is a bad guy. The number one rule in those situations -- There is always one more bad guy than the one you can see. This attitude is forced on the situation by rationalizations about self defense (particularly one on one mano-a-mano bs) , guns, weapons of mass destruction. Certainly in the Holmes case if a concealed weapons carrier were close, at the time, Holmes would have been shot, because the carrier knew they were next. The theatre corporation owning the plex, where it happened had a guns free policy.
The current statics (spelling intentional) show more people murdered with hammers and fists than rifles in shotguns in the US. (does not include handguns)

latest California incident shows handguns -- 3 down---- knives -- 3 down
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top