Do jurors who recommend death owe a debt to the executed's family if he's proven innocent too late?
Or do they owe nothing because they acted on the premise of sincere belief in his guilt of the crime for which he was convicted and, therefore, his deservance of death? Or because judges can choose not to follow the sentence recommendation if not the only option.
Answers:
No, the jurors have no liability in performing their civic duty. Now the jurisdiction that failed to enter exculpatory evidence, if any was available would have some culpability. Death sentences are usually used in heinous crimes and in most cases there is little doubt to guilt after the evidence is heard. That is why our system requires 12 people to agree unanimously in a persons guilt or acquittal. If all 12 are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they all done their duty. If even one thinks there is a plausible alternate scenario, then the jury is not unanimous in their verdict and a mistrial is ordered. After conviction, the condemned person has at least 5 years of incarceration to make appeals and for additional evidence to be located. Has there been people executed that were innocent? ... probably, and in those instances you usually find there were some wrongdoings by the prosecution, the defense or the court, and yes, they should have to pay a punitive penalty to the family, but I think you'll find there are a lot more people that deserve the death penalty that get off than the other way around and that should be what scares the crap out of you.
I wouldn't think they'd owe anything. After all, they are basing their verdict on the evidence. What if the defense team does an inadequate job bring up the evidence that would get a "Not Guilty" verdict? Or what if , unbeknownst to everyone at trial time, someone incriminated the defendant by tampering with some evidence. Hopefully if the defendant is truly innocent it will come out during the appellate process. But there are many situations in which it is feasible for well-meaning jurors to base their decision on the evidence in front of them, but to get the verdict wrong.
They are simply required to weigh the evidence and decide on whether it is guilty or not guilty. The evidence would have to be strong to convict and even stronger to recommend the death penalty. Therefore so long as they carry out that duty honestly and truthfully there should be no comeback on them.
If someone is later shown to be not guilty then there must have been a problem with a false witness, perjury or something like that. Therefore everyone in court is nothing to do with it!
Some say there should be no death penalty because an innocent man may die. BUT - if an innocent man dies that is one person. Sadly there are many cases where persons have been found not guilty and released or guilty but given a lesser sentence where upon they go on to kill again.
The death penalty is a hard question with no right answer but one that civilised society has to address repeatedly.
No. The presupposition that the prosecution, trial and verdict were all done in good faith should preclude that.
You answered your own question..
"they owe nothing because they acted on the premise of sincere belief in his guilt of the crime for which he was convicted.."
I would say nothing, they are asked to do a tough job and have to go with the best evidence presented. Maybe the defense attorney should get the blame?
Interesting ethical question. I would say as long as the trial was done in a fair manner that they acted on the premise of a sincere belief as you say.
Now if there was questionable circumstances around the trial and evidence etc.. then I definitely would think they owe a debt to them and to society as well if there was a wrongful conviction etc. if that makes sense.
evidence-the burden lies with the prosecution.
Should the guilty's family have to pay the victim's family if he is really guilty since they raised a murderer?
Jurors owe nobody anything for the verdict they reach. Jurors make their decision on the evidence that is presented them. There is quite a bit that goes on in the court room and in chambers that the jury is not even privy to.
No. There are already too many apologists and alleged victims in this country.
They don't owe them the time of day. They were seated on a jury in an American courtroom. I find it incredulous that anyone on death row is innocent. If they were innocent the state owes the perp money for being locked up. I wonder if the average person on death row led such an innocent life before doing an act that ended someones life?
No.
No. Until you have served as juror on a murder trail, keep you opinions to yourself. Turn your anger on the Prosecution or the defense if it is a wrong verdict. The jurors have already been through hell.
that would set a dangerous precedent. there cannot be any motivation for the jury other than the truth. if a juror is protecting his or her own butt, how can you trust the verdict? everyone has a right to a fair trial.
Jurors can only decide by the information given. Most times Judges go along with what they decide. It is up to the defense attorneys to to their absolute best to present a case that is favorable to the defendant.
You'd be better to look into the cops, all attorneys, DA, witnesses involved. If there are enough cases like this brought into the public view the laws might be changed. Putting innocent people behind bars happens everyday. Cops with grudges, DA's who withhold evidence, absolutely incompetent defense attorneys and public offenders, judges who knowingly convict innocent people, witnesses who lie or are prepared by the DA so their stories coincide, jurors who know nothing and are pissed about this interruption of their lives, and many other factors lead to this problem.
NO
They have to do the best job they can with the evidence & testimony & what the opposing sides provide.
We know that sometimes innocent people get convicted, and guilty go free. The system is not perfect.
Our obligation is to help the system function to best of our abilities and strive to improve it.
yes, because a lot of time jurors base their judgements on skin color, the victims crying family, or if they hate the accused, so if he is found to be innocent then the jurors should be held responsible.
They are judging a peer from the evidence presented... so no.
Jurors are like attorneys and judges. They have no civil liability when they are acting in their authority as a juror.
I personally believe that prosecuting attorneys and judges should be held accountable for allowing innocent people to be convicted as should social workers who have the power to remove children from families. They should be criminally liable for those acts if their conduct led to innocent people being hurt or imprisoned or bankrupted.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: