Selecting Accused Sniper John Mohammad's Jury...

[arwalden]

Local news informs us that the prosecution and defense lawyers are questioning folks to determine if they will be selected to be seated on John Mohammad's jury.

Apparently, every juror is asked whether or not he/she is capable of imposing the death penalty, and if they indicate that they are opposed to the death penalty, then they are NOT chosen.

This doesn't seem right to me. Am I missing something?

I understand that a fair jury should be questioned to determine if they have formed any rock-solid unwavering opinions about the defendant's guilt or innocence. That's a good thing. --- I understand that a fair jury should be composed of mixed ages, mixed races, mixed genders, mixed economic status, etc... so why not mixed in the belief of death penalty?

For this one issue, it appears as though the jury is being "stacked" in favor of the death penalty. And I'm assuming that this is true for all death penalty cases.

-- Allen

[demnan]

1. Well in Virginia

the rednecks here are obsessed with putting people to death. We're number two behind Texas, and dammit, we want to catch up. The reason they're holding the trials in Virginia, rather than Maryland where the majority of the murders occurred is because Virginia has a death penalty and is likely to use it. They sure aren't going to let that get foiled by some left-wing liberal bleeding heart on the jury who doesn't sanction state-assisted murder (outside the womb).

I've served on juries in Virginia but never a murder trial, and I suppose, I never will.

[sangh0]

2. You might be missing something

Apparently, every juror is asked whether or not he/she is capable of imposing the death penalty, and if they indicate that they are opposed to the death penalty, then they are NOT chosen.

This doesn't seem right to me. Am I missing something?

The role of the jury is, at least in part, to apply the law, not their own personal opinions on what the law should be. Since capital punishment is a part of the law, in order to serve as a juror in a capital case, the juror must be able to apply the applicable laws. Therefore, one cannot become a juror in such a case if one is unable, due to one's opposition to the death penalty, to impose such a sentence even if the facts support the use of the DP.

I think you may have misunderstood the question that jurors are asked. People who are opposed to the death penalty CAN serve on capital cases so long as their opposition does not prevent them from performing their civic duty, including their ability to impose capital punishment, if that's what the law calls for.

[arwalden]

3. Thanks!!! Your Explanation Makes Sense...

... and helps me understand what might actually be going on.

But that's not how the local reporters are framing their stories. I keep hearing that jurors are being asked if they (simply) do-or-don't support the death penalty---and that those who are opposed are summarily dismissed from the jury pool.

Nothing I've heard from local news has even TOUCHED on whether they are being asked if they could IMPOSE a death sentence as required by law.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

-- Allen

[sangh0]

4. There's one of two explanations

1) The reporters are idiots, and don't know the difference between merely opposing the death penalty, and being unable to impose it.

2) The judge is allowing improper questioning of the prospective jurors.

I suspect the former is at work here. Generally speaking, reporters are lazy idiots who would rather repeat what they think they heard than do the heavy lifting of learning the subject matter.