There are certain topics that simply are not worth arguing about<br />
anymore. It is those issues where people are so firmly dug in as to<br />
their opinion, that further discussion is futile. Examples of these<br />
unmovable mindsets are issues such as abortion, gun rights, religion,<br />
politics and the like. I try to avoid these topics with friends and<br />
colleagues who I know might share a different philosophy than me. But,<br />
every once in a while, something happens that just irks you so bad<br />
that it is impossible to bite your lip and you have to try once again<br />
to=2 0get people to understand why you might be so adamant on an issue.<br />
This happened to me last week with one of those issues.<br />
<br />
As you might imagine, I am a strong proponent of the death penalty.<br />
And I know that there are just as many of you who are just as strongly<br />
positioned against the death penalty. My arguments for the death<br />
penalty are long and laborious, which I won't bore you with today, and<br />
are also based on 30 years of practical experience within the criminal<br />
justice and judicial system. While I am confident that I am on the<br />
right side of this issue, it was not simply whether or not we should<br />
have the death penalty as an option that got me all riled up this<br />
time. It was the news that the death penalty had been denied in the<br />
Brian Nichols penalty phase based on three of the jurors holding out.<br />
Nine of the jurors were in favor of the death penalty. And it was not<br />
just that the three hold outs chose to vote against the death penalty,<br />
it was the news that apparently they never intended to consider it as<br />
an option. According to a news account of the proceeding, one of the<br />
jurors who held out worked on a cross word puzzle during the<br />
deliberations. Do you think they were really participating in honest<br />
and open discussion?<br />
<br />
Current law requires a unanimous decision from the jury in order for<br />
the death penalty to be utilized. Ordinarily, I would be okay with<br />
that. It also re quires a unanimous decision in matters of guilt and<br />
innocence. And I am completely okay with that. But, this is not the<br />
first time that we have seen a death penalty case that has been<br />
derailed based on jurors who have manipulated the system. In the jury<br />
selection process, only those jurors who state under oath that they<br />
will openly consider all options for punishment, including the death<br />
=0 Apenalty in capital cases, are allowed on the jury that actually makes<br />
it to the jury box. It does not mean that they have to vote for the<br />
death penalty, it simply means that they must have an open mind and if<br />
the cases are worthy of such punishment, they will consider it.<br />
The Nichols case is an example of jurors who state in the selection<br />
process that they would consider all options, only to enter the<br />
punishment phase deliberation with no intention of ever voting for the<br />
death penalty. Several, after the fact, have stated that they simply<br />
could not be a part of such a vote. This stance is completely<br />
acceptable, but it should have been stated, and stated honestly,<br />
before they ever got to that position. It is not acceptable to get<br />
them in a position, under false pretense, simply to prevent any<br />
possibility of the death penalty being imposed. It undermines the<br />
system and goes against the entire grain of open and honest jurors who<br />
have sworn to consider all options according to the circumstances and<br />
legal issues that have been p resented.<br />
<br />
It is not easy to have someone put to death based on the commission<br />
and ultimate conviction for a crime that they have committed. And it<br />
shouldn't be easy. It should be very difficult. But under current law,<br />
certain cases, based on aggravating circumstances are eligible for the<br />
death penalty to be sought if that person is found guilty. It has been<br />
said that the d eath penalty is the ultimate punishment for the<br />
ultimate crime. It should be, and is, used only in the most extreme<br />
cases of bent of mind and criminal enterprise, where the crime is so<br />
egregious that a death penalty punishment would be pursued. Under this<br />
very finite guideline of when it can be pursued and a small percentage<br />
of cases where it is actually pursued, it should be done in an honest<br />
and open manner. Based on the manipulation processes being used, that<br />
is currently not he case.<br />
<br />
The option of achieving a death penalty punishment, without a<br />
unanimous vote, has been discussed recently with talk of another<br />
attempt to do so in the upcoming legislative session. In the<br />
beginning, I must say that I was cool to the idea based on historical<br />
precedent as to how the law was applied. But with another example, in<br />
the Nichols case, where the basic credibility of the law, and hence<br />
the system, seems to be occurring routinely, I must say that I am not<br />
only warming to the idea but have broken out in an absolute sweat in<br />
fav or of such a move. The new law would allow the death penalty to be<br />
imposed even in cases where the vote was not unanimous but with no<br />
more than two hold outs. This would at least provide a buffer to<br />
circumvent the actions that we now see.<br />
<br />
It is not what anyone would have wished for but seems to be a<br />
solution that will allow the option of the ultimate penalty for the<br />
u ltimate crime. If the case that we have all followed for the past two<br />
years is not worthy of the death penalty, there will never be such a<br />
case. It was the ultimate crime but only received a less than ultimate<br />
sentence. Those solutions will go far in undermining the sanctity of<br />
the system. As it stands now, the only thing receiving the death<br />
sentence is the death sentence itself. Dead on arrival!
