Do Two People Make A Difference?
The Georgia House of Representatives thinks so.
In Georgia there are two phases to a murder trial: Guilt deliberations and penalty deliberations. Currently, two unanimous votes are required, one on guilt and one on the penalty to be imposed. The Georgia House wants the second vote to only require a 10 to 2 vote to impose the death penalty. Our esteemed representatives don't want a couple of do-gooders to prevent "justice" from being served. Prosecutors' efforts (the "Peoples' representatives") to execute people are being foiled by hold out jurors.
If passed, Georgia would be the only state with such a statute. (Delaware and Montana judges decide sentences; and, Alabama and Florida juries make recommendations to the judge, who decides the sentence.)
If you think that a less than unanimous vote is morally sufficient to execute someone who has been unanimously found to be guilty, why not 9 -3, 8 -4, or 7-5? It seems less of a good idea with each reduced ratio doesn't it?
Here in Georgia a unanimous jury has to decide that you are negligent in an auto accident and what damages you should pay (several states allow split verdicts); but, our representatives would reduce that burden when if comes to the most serious penalty the government can impose. Does that make sense?
Even if you are in favor of the death penalty, do you really want to make it easy?
4 comments:
Georgia is a state in what country? Uganda, perhaps?
How is it that such a civilized guy as you survives there? Is there a liberal section of Atlanta with a moat around it?
It's an election year, and death penalty demagoguing is a cheap way to pick up votes.
LF and Doc,
There are mulitple Georgias. There's the "donut" which is bounded by I-285, urban and for the most part civilized (thanks LF), though skewed among the various political beliefs we see across the country. There is the ex-urban metro Atlanta that is civilized but tends to skew much more conservative than the donut. Then there is the rest of the state, and I exagerate, that hates all that is in the first two parts and believes that God will strike the City dwellers down. Politicians play to the last group of voters as the first two fight among themselves.
As to election years, Doc you're wrong. The same bill came up last year. We are also considering a bill to amend the state constitution to declare that life begins at conception. The Speaker of the state house just got a divorce and got the entire record sealed, in violation of several statutes.
Our politicians don't wait for election years to pander and self deal. Pandering and self dealing are, to steal and advertising phrase, "Job Number One" in our state.
Is it coincidence that the word verification thing I've imposed on myself made me type "hwuevil?"
I saw this in the paper today. Not sure it is such a great idea. Our problem is that we aren't executing enough people? Hmm. I did not know that. /sarcasm
I can't figure out these "religious" people that think all human life (especially the pre-born, no matter what stage of development) is sacred, except all those criminals they want to execute and all the innocent civilians that get killed in foreign wars. WTF?
Post a Comment