The rejection of the defense's proposal to move the trial just seemed petty to me. As we both agree, there's enough evidence to find him guilty in just about any US court of law, so why MUST it have been in Boston, the one place where he would be most likely to face a Kangaroo court? No offense to the people of Massachusetts, I just think you're human beings. I don't think anyone should get the death penalty, but that's a story for another comment another day, likely.If people who kill a single cop get the death penalty, if people who rape and murder a single person get the death penalty, I think someone who murdered multiple people, injured hundreds more, emotionally traumatized a city, and instilled fear in the entire country should probably get the death penalty.
I agree. Additionally, I felt it was a move made to give the greater Boston / Massachusetts area some justice or payback and feel ownership over the situation so they could heal and go back to being Boston. There's no facts....or really anything..... backing up that thought, though. Indeed. We could argue that all day. In fact, I could argue with myself all day. I'm on the fence and, shamefully, tend to flip flop depending on the circumstance. It's easiest to talk about punishment for cases in the same way jurors are instructed to. Basically, regardless of what you think of the death penalty....well here:The rejection of the defense's proposal to move the trial just seemed petty to me.
I don't think anyone should get the death penalty, but that's a story for another comment another day, likely.
Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by the court. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any other view of the law than that given in these instructions of the court; just as it would be a violation of your sworn duty, as judges of the facts, to base a verdict upon anything but the evidence in the case. Justice through trial by jury must always depend upon the willingness of each individual juror to seek the truth as to the facts from the same evidence presented to all the jurors; and to arrive at a verdict by applying the same rules of law, as given in the instructions of the court.
Yes. it's the Jury's job to enforce the law, not to make it or pass judgement on that law. "Does this case meet the standard set out for the death penalty - yes or no?" is basically what the Jurors must decide, not "Does this person 'deserve' to die in your opinion". Next time you have 20 minutes, I think you might find this video worthwhile: I hope that I could have a quarter of Hector Black's grace in his situation.I'm on the fence and, shamefully, tend to flip flop depending on the circumstance.