I've searched but I haven't been able to find the CO death penalty jury instructions. But they are always given very specific, very detailed instructions. They aren't just told - hey kids, go at it, and let us know if you think he should die. They are given all kinds of tests and criteria, which are based on the death penalty statute in the state.
There's an example model death penalty jury instructions on this page.
Quote:
Death Penalty - Preliminary Instructions
If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence in this case, any one of you does not make these [two] [three] findings beyond a reasonable doubt, your deliberations will be over. If you do unanimously make these [two] [three] findings beyond a reasonable doubt, you will then proceed to determine whether you unanimously find that the government has proved the existence of any nonstatutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether any of you find that the defendant has proved any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. You must then engage in a weighing process. If you unanimously find that the aggravating factor or factors, which you all found to exist, sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factor or factors, which any one of you found to exist to justify imposition of a sentence of death, or, if, in the absence of a mitigating factor or factors,
you find that the aggravating factor or factors alone are sufficient to justify imposition of a sentence of death, and that death is therefore the appropriate sentence in this case, the law provides that the defendant must be sentenced to death.
I've searched but I haven't been able to find the CO death penalty jury instructions. But they are always given very specific, very detailed instructions. They aren't just told - hey kids, go at it, and let us know if you think he should die. They are given all kinds of tests and criteria, which are based on the death penalty statute in the state.
There's an example model death penalty jury instructions on this page.
It goes on and on like that for like 50 pages.
Thank you, Brussel---I guess that isn't something you're likely to pick up on a episode of Perry Mason. I wish we had as many attorneys on this forum as we do hard science people.
What are the chances Ruth Bader Ginsburg cruises by AI spoiling for an argument on Borg propulsion technology?
Er, 1st Amend deals with freedom of *expression*, not freedom of reading. Important difference.
Telling a juror that he or she she cannot read the Bible while on jury duty violates the following amendments:
Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Taking away a person's Bible (or telling him he can't read it) is telling that person that he cannot practice his religion. Telling a person that they can't practice religon is establishing a religion and is a violation of the First Amendment.
Quote:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's none of the government's business whether or not I am reading a bible. If they want to take the Bible, it violates the 4th amendment.
Quote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because the Bill of Rights doesn't specifically say you have the "freedom to read" does not mean you don't have the freedom of reading. The Constitution does not give the government the power to restrict what you read, therefore they can't do it. This amendment is often ignored.
I thought we'd evolved past that, but I guess we've swung all the way from the right to the left when it comes to thought control. From McCarthy to the ACLU.
Well... freedom was fun for the 20 years it lasted.
I thought we'd evolved past that, but I guess we've swung all the way from the right to the left when it comes to thought control. From McCarthy to the ACLU.
Just try publishing a "conservative" (something not socialist) opinion piece in a college newspaper.
Not believing, but discussing during deliberations when you're given the specific criteria to use, and told to use no other criteria.
It's kind of silly to imagine someone sitting on a jury in a death row case who DOESN'T consider and then discuss the morality of what they are being asked to do. Wouldn't you?
It's kind of silly to imagine someone sitting on a jury in a death row case who DOESN'T consider and then discuss the morality of what they are being asked to do. Wouldn't you?
it would be inappropriate to say the least to say that because god says in book x chapter y line z this man deserves to die or live. but i do believe that people who follow strictly the words of a book as unclear as, say, the bible are not really following what words are there (because they all are more or less) but are following what they truly feel. regardless, the jury is not empowered to decide the fate of the defendent by hook and crook. as brussell said, there are clear guidelines given in all jury cases when deciding not only verdict but like in capitol cases the punishment. none of these guidelines indicate using a religious book as source...
This is just another reason why the death penalty should be banned. There is no reasonable way for a jury to make unbiased decisions in their sentancing.
Just try publishing a "conservative" (something not socialist) opinion piece in a college newspaper.
that is complete bullshit...
i went to what was arguably once the most liberal college on the east coast and the editors went out of their way to put in conservative/alterative viewpoints even though they represented some 10% of the campus population...
it would be inappropriate to say the least to say that because god says in book x chapter y line z this man deserves to die or live...
Not this man, a man. The reason they consulted the Bible was for guidance as to whether the death penalty was a proper punishment in and of itself. The judge is already on record as saying (even while overturning the verdict) that this case qualified as a death peanlty case if any case does. The jury had already considered the evidence and voted to convict. The issue, apparently, was whether the state should be allowed to execute the defendant. One can argue that it wasn't the jury's job to consider the morality of the death penalty but that doesn't strike me as realistic.
[B The reason they consulted the Bible was for guidance as to whether the death penalty was a proper punishment in and of itself. [/B]
Exactly. Our laws and judicial guidance are not written in the Bible. Juries should not consult anything besides that in which our laws are found/described. Jurors are not responsible to decide whether the death penalty is a moral punishment. They are there to decide whether it is a fitting punishment for a crime based on the standards of laws that, incidentally, are not written in the Bible.
I understood what you were saying it's just not a realistic position to take. Of course people will debate the morality of the death penalty when it's placed in their lap like this. If you were on that jury, you'd have debated it too.
Of course people will debate the morality of the death penalty when it's placed in their lap like this.
Then they should not have been on the jury. They should have either excused themselves, or been excused by the opposing attorney during the selection process.
I understood what you were saying it's just not a realistic position to take. Of course people will debate the morality of the death penalty when it's placed in their lap like this. If you were on that jury, you'd have debated it too.
i am not absoulutely certain of this but i am willing to guess that in capitol punishment cases the guidance given to the jury probably explicitly says you are not supposed to judge the morality of the death penalty etc etc...
Then they should not have been on the jury. They should have either excused themselves, or been excused by the opposing attorney during the selection process.
Maybe they shouldn't have been but they were. The prosecution probably screwed up. As for the opposing attorney, he or she probably wants someone on the jury who will question the morality of the death penalty.
i am not absoulutely certain of this but i am willing to guess that in capitol punishment cases the guidance given to the jury probably explicitly says you are not supposed to judge the morality of the death penalty etc etc...
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that kind of message IS delivered. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in a lot death penalty cases someone ignores that instruction.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
.....what criteria, specifically?
I've searched but I haven't been able to find the CO death penalty jury instructions. But they are always given very specific, very detailed instructions. They aren't just told - hey kids, go at it, and let us know if you think he should die. They are given all kinds of tests and criteria, which are based on the death penalty statute in the state.
There's an example model death penalty jury instructions on this page.
Death Penalty - Preliminary Instructions
If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence in this case, any one of you does not make these [two] [three] findings beyond a reasonable doubt, your deliberations will be over. If you do unanimously make these [two] [three] findings beyond a reasonable doubt, you will then proceed to determine whether you unanimously find that the government has proved the existence of any nonstatutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether any of you find that the defendant has proved any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. You must then engage in a weighing process. If you unanimously find that the aggravating factor or factors, which you all found to exist, sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factor or factors, which any one of you found to exist to justify imposition of a sentence of death, or, if, in the absence of a mitigating factor or factors,
you find that the aggravating factor or factors alone are sufficient to justify imposition of a sentence of death, and that death is therefore the appropriate sentence in this case, the law provides that the defendant must be sentenced to death.
It goes on and on like that for like 50 pages.
Originally posted by BRussell
I've searched but I haven't been able to find the CO death penalty jury instructions. But they are always given very specific, very detailed instructions. They aren't just told - hey kids, go at it, and let us know if you think he should die. They are given all kinds of tests and criteria, which are based on the death penalty statute in the state.
There's an example model death penalty jury instructions on this page.
It goes on and on like that for like 50 pages.
Thank you, Brussel---I guess that isn't something you're likely to pick up on a episode of Perry Mason. I wish we had as many attorneys on this forum as we do hard science people.
What are the chances Ruth Bader Ginsburg cruises by AI spoiling for an argument on Borg propulsion technology?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, 1st Amend deals with freedom of *expression*, not freedom of reading. Important difference.
Telling a juror that he or she she cannot read the Bible while on jury duty violates the following amendments:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Taking away a person's Bible (or telling him he can't read it) is telling that person that he cannot practice his religion. Telling a person that they can't practice religon is establishing a religion and is a violation of the First Amendment.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It's none of the government's business whether or not I am reading a bible. If they want to take the Bible, it violates the 4th amendment.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because the Bill of Rights doesn't specifically say you have the "freedom to read" does not mean you don't have the freedom of reading. The Constitution does not give the government the power to restrict what you read, therefore they can't do it. This amendment is often ignored.
I thought we'd evolved past that, but I guess we've swung all the way from the right to the left when it comes to thought control. From McCarthy to the ACLU.
Well... freedom was fun for the 20 years it lasted.
Originally posted by groverat
This is little more than thoughtcrime, IMO.
I thought we'd evolved past that, but I guess we've swung all the way from the right to the left when it comes to thought control. From McCarthy to the ACLU.
Just try publishing a "conservative" (something not socialist) opinion piece in a college newspaper.
Originally posted by AppleMaster
Just try publishing a "conservative" (something not socialist) opinion piece in a college newspaper.
Yea. You'll get your papers tossed in the trash and the University President will give some kind of freedom award to the people who did it.
Oh but wait no it's only the right that stomps of free speech. Tim Robins told me so.
Ah yes. The all classic handbook in rhetoric comes handy every time.
Originally posted by BRussell
Not believing, but discussing during deliberations when you're given the specific criteria to use, and told to use no other criteria.
It's kind of silly to imagine someone sitting on a jury in a death row case who DOESN'T consider and then discuss the morality of what they are being asked to do. Wouldn't you?
Originally posted by billybobsky
another judge could have cited any other reason...
And when another judge does, I'll be happy to discuss it. In THIS case the judge contends that the jury didn't act in a constitutional manner.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It's kind of silly to imagine someone sitting on a jury in a death row case who DOESN'T consider and then discuss the morality of what they are being asked to do. Wouldn't you?
it would be inappropriate to say the least to say that because god says in book x chapter y line z this man deserves to die or live. but i do believe that people who follow strictly the words of a book as unclear as, say, the bible are not really following what words are there (because they all are more or less) but are following what they truly feel. regardless, the jury is not empowered to decide the fate of the defendent by hook and crook. as brussell said, there are clear guidelines given in all jury cases when deciding not only verdict but like in capitol cases the punishment. none of these guidelines indicate using a religious book as source...
This is just another reason why the death penalty should be banned. There is no reasonable way for a jury to make unbiased decisions in their sentancing.
Originally posted by AppleMaster
Just try publishing a "conservative" (something not socialist) opinion piece in a college newspaper.
that is complete bullshit...
i went to what was arguably once the most liberal college on the east coast and the editors went out of their way to put in conservative/alterative viewpoints even though they represented some 10% of the campus population...
Originally posted by billybobsky
it would be inappropriate to say the least to say that because god says in book x chapter y line z this man deserves to die or live...
Not this man, a man. The reason they consulted the Bible was for guidance as to whether the death penalty was a proper punishment in and of itself. The judge is already on record as saying (even while overturning the verdict) that this case qualified as a death peanlty case if any case does. The jury had already considered the evidence and voted to convict. The issue, apparently, was whether the state should be allowed to execute the defendant. One can argue that it wasn't the jury's job to consider the morality of the death penalty but that doesn't strike me as realistic.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
[B The reason they consulted the Bible was for guidance as to whether the death penalty was a proper punishment in and of itself. [/B]
Exactly. Our laws and judicial guidance are not written in the Bible. Juries should not consult anything besides that in which our laws are found/described. Jurors are not responsible to decide whether the death penalty is a moral punishment. They are there to decide whether it is a fitting punishment for a crime based on the standards of laws that, incidentally, are not written in the Bible.
Is that clear enough?
Originally posted by billybobsky
Is that clear enough?
I understood what you were saying it's just not a realistic position to take. Of course people will debate the morality of the death penalty when it's placed in their lap like this. If you were on that jury, you'd have debated it too.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Of course people will debate the morality of the death penalty when it's placed in their lap like this.
Then they should not have been on the jury. They should have either excused themselves, or been excused by the opposing attorney during the selection process.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I understood what you were saying it's just not a realistic position to take. Of course people will debate the morality of the death penalty when it's placed in their lap like this. If you were on that jury, you'd have debated it too.
i am not absoulutely certain of this but i am willing to guess that in capitol punishment cases the guidance given to the jury probably explicitly says you are not supposed to judge the morality of the death penalty etc etc...
Originally posted by jesperas
Then they should not have been on the jury. They should have either excused themselves, or been excused by the opposing attorney during the selection process.
Maybe they shouldn't have been but they were. The prosecution probably screwed up. As for the opposing attorney, he or she probably wants someone on the jury who will question the morality of the death penalty.
Originally posted by billybobsky
i am not absoulutely certain of this but i am willing to guess that in capitol punishment cases the guidance given to the jury probably explicitly says you are not supposed to judge the morality of the death penalty etc etc...
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that kind of message IS delivered. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in a lot death penalty cases someone ignores that instruction.