Place Your Bets: Casey Anthony Trial

[Warren Dew]

Though this is vanishingly rare, there is the possibility that even with a recommendation of life in prison the judge could still impose the death penalty.

That may be allowed by Florida law, but it's not allowed by Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court has said that it must be a jury, not a judge, which finds the aggravating factors necessary to imposition of the death penalty. See Ring v Arizona:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-488.ZS.html

The upshot is that the defendant could not be executed in that case.

[laklak]

Interesting, I haven't heard of any appeals based on it, but that may be because judges in Florida invariably go with the jury recommendation. I found a site that I can't find now that indicated that the opposite situation is more common, that a judge will reduce a death recommendation to life imprisonment.

[mistermack]

It's hardly ever cut and dried, and with the death sentence looming, I would have to be absolutely convinced, with virtually no doubt at all, before I would convict.

If it was just life imprisonment, you have the chance of being cleared later, so I would not need such overwhelming proof to convict.

And my opinion is that if a juror is using the excuse, "you have the chance of being cleared later", he shouldn't be voting guilty, no matter what the penalty is.

That would be ok, if all cases were clear-cut. But they hardly ever are.
If every jury acquitted whenever there was any doubt, there would be very few convictions. That's why the law says REASONABLE doubt.
That is where the law accepts that some innocent people will inevitably be found guilty, and some guilty will inevitably get off.
That's ok, nothing's perfect.
But the death penalty runs directly contrary to this fact.

Unless the law is actually saying "it's ok to kill a few innocents, to ensure that the guilty pay the full price".
If that's the case, they should have had the integrity to write it down in black and white, not carry on this ludicrous pretence that every person found guilty IS guilty.
.

[Nicko]

It is, of course, always a good lesson to NEVER talk to the police. They are out to get a conviction. They are never out to help someone suspected of a crime.

[Nicko]

If every jury acquitted whenever there was any doubt, there would be very few convictions. That's why the law says REASONABLE doubt.
That is where the law accepts that some innocent people will inevitably be found guilty, and some guilty will inevitably get off.
That's ok, nothing's perfect.
But the death penalty runs directly contrary to this fact.

Unless the law is actually saying "it's ok to kill a few innocents, to ensure that the guilty pay the full price".
If that's the case, they should have had the integrity to write it down in black and white, not carry on this ludicrous pretence that every person found guilty IS guilty.

I would still oppose the death penalty even if the system was infallable. I just do not accept that the state has the right to kill.