?
"Evan" wrote
Anyone that tries to kill their child is mentally ill. Nothing to
debate.



Which is EXACTLY why you would NOT make a perfect juror, your
mind is already made up based on the barest understanding of the
concept and not even the faintest whiff of the evidence...

Let's see how it plays out. Lawyers will try all sorts of pleas, but any
mother that tries to kill her child is not normal. I don't see how that can
be debated.



So in your eyes, would a booking picture of someone with red
bloodshot eyes be the only thing you would need to see to find
someone guilty of DUI ?

No, but a field sobriety test and a follow up breathalyzer will do.



Sadly your blood lust and desire for revenge is misplaced...
Massachusetts has no death penalty... You would be wise
to push aside your preconceived notions and flawed schemas
of how people work emotionally -- if you were on the jury
hearing this case, and you really felt strongly about your
belief that anyone who tries to kill their child is mentally
ill, you would have to find the accused not guilty by reason
of mental illness or defect OR be dishonest and make
a the choice wanting to hear nothing beyond what you
had already decided the first day in court when you were
being empaneled as a juror...

I'd be honest. Mentally ill. See, that was quick and in these days of tough
times, very cost effective.



To find someone guilty of a crime in Massachusetts you
must believe that they knowingly committed the offense
they are accused of and that they were not influenced by
or had their mental faculties impeded by a mental illness...

Exactly


That said, under present circumstances, I'm against the death penalty.
Why?
Because it costs so damned much for appeals and takes too much time.
Cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell. No TV either.


Cheaper to toss bad guys in a cell ? ROFL... You don't have a
clue...
It is NOT cheaper to toss the bad guys in a cell, especially with LIFE
sentences in play... Someone who is 30 at the time of conviction can
live another 50+ years behind bars... It costs a lot to house those
people in humane conditions (properly controlled environmental
conditions,
no overcrowding), feed them three times a day, clothe them and provide
for their healthcare... Costs per inmate vary by facility but can be
upwards of $50,000 per inmate per year...

Sorry, Evan, but that is the truth. In a recent conviction here in CT, the
lawyer is considering using the cost factor as a defense to toss out the
death penalty in his case. We spend millions to defend and appeal cases for
people on death row. Put them in a cell, toss them some food and move on.

Check out some arguments here
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view....rceID=002000#6
CON: "In the course of my work, I believe I have reviewed every state and
federal study of the costs of the death penalty in the past 25 years. One
element is common to all of these studies: They all concluded that the cost
of the death penalty amounts to a net expense to the state and the
taxpayers. Or to put it differently,the death penalty is clearly more
expensive than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment.
[It] combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and
complicated death penalty trials, followed by incarceration for life...
Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death
penalty case, only more so:
.. More pre-trial time...
.. More experts...
.. Twice as many attorneys...
.. Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for
punishment.
.. And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held
in the high security of death row."
Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD
Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center
Testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado State House of
Representatives regarding "House Bill 1094 - Costs of the Death Penalty and
Related Issues"
Feb. 7, 2007