I watched this just last night on PBS. This woman has some sort of Stockholm syndrome with out ever being kidnapped. She is infatuated with a murderer. She has keep letters they have wrote back and forth and new paper clippings. She's even kept old packets of ketchup and mayonnaise he once had. I will say it again, she kept Ketchup and mayonnaise packets he had when he was being held in prison. She said her self she has lost friends and FAMILY over this. She can't let go of the past. She has gone to other members she was on the jury with to talk about how they did the wrong thing. One man she visited told her they did the right thing. She left that mans house mad and irrate calling him shallow. Another woman on the jury she tried to contact told her to "please stop calling me,do not come to my house and to leave her alone". Which tell's me she was probably calling and bugging this woman constantly like a mad woman. She even calls the murderer by his first name, and even calls him "her Bobby" She gave him the nick name HER BOBBY. This man killed two woman with NO remorse at all. These two woman had friends and family who loved them. Yet this crazy woman insist that he was a good hearted man. A good hearted man who killed two women. Saying she didn't condon what he did but he didn't deserve the death penalty. This man would have walked away after being held in prison and may have done this again. All the other members of the jury said them selves "He had NO remorse for what he did". He got what he deserved. This woman needs psychiatric help. To lose not only friends but also family over a man you barely knew, a man in prison who killed two women is absolutely insane. She was a married woman who feel in love with another man. A murderer.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
This is what happens when a society forgoes justice for revenge. We start justifying taking a life and loose all restraint. Ever hear of "two wrongs don't make a right"? "An eye for an eye just leaves you both blind"? Why not instead of punishment we teach healing, forgiveness, and growth. We comfort victims and those left behind, and teach the individuals that do such acts how to become better people and give them a second chance. There is no need to let more blood be spilled. The people who committee crimes are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and so much more because they are people. How much more damage do we want to cause in the pursuit of revenge instead of justice. Blame and punishment are easy, forgiveness and reconciliation are much more difficult.
I want to see rivers of blood spill from the necks of beheaded criminals and innocent victims of miscarriages of justice. After that I could turn their carcasses into valuable substances worth more than they could make in their worthless lives.
Personally, I think killing should only be used as a last resort. It should not be used as a form of justice. Our government, ideally, should be designed as an example of how our society should behave. When there are other solutions available that don't involve killing, we should choose that option first. That is what an ethical society should do. Our justice system should not lower itself to the behavior of the worst in society. That being said, there are of course other reasons to not support capital punishment, errors in the final judgment, the extra legal costs often costing more than putting someone in jail for life, etc.
My father was murdered when I was eight years old. I myself was shot two times by an active shooter. I am very much against the death penalty. I wish not for death to whoever killed my Dad. I want to know why? And if I had died the night I was shot, I would not want another life lost. What I do want is support, via therapy. And job training, so that I can move on as a survivor. But never loss of life.
Much love to you and I wish good things to you. My Grandad I overheard years ago talking with my mom's friend and for whatever reason the death penalty was brought up and I remember I my Grandad saying he would not want the death penalty for my killer because my mom's friend asked him. After doing research on the DP I was so glad my Grandad said that. My mom and my aunt we're also against the DP. Before they all died I did tell them especially my mom to please not support the DP if I was ever killed and I wouldn't want the DP for my loved ones killer either because I recognize that my loved ones life isn't worth more then others loved ones. My mom said she would not want the person killed. It's ok if no one agrees with me and I've come to hate the death penalty because for me it doesn't sit right morally for me. But hearing my Grandad and my mom say they wouldn't want it really helped and shaped who the person I've become. I want to hang on to my humanity.
she said "we have just sentenced man to death" "she's been asking herself in the 25 years since the trial: Am I a murderer?" BUT She din't sentenced anybody (or any other jury), judge did ... "The verdict of the jury is a unanimous RECOMMENDATION for the death penalty to be imposed. It is now incumbent upon the Court to determine whether or not this penalty is appropriate, and the Court will deliberate and make an independent determination using the same weighing process that was employed by the jury"
Most people are missing the point here. She isnt arguing that he wasnt guilty or that he shouldnt be punished, she is raising a question as to whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for any crime. Even for murder. We as a people are killing a human being. We are punishing a murderer with murder. He might have had his own rationale, however twisted, for murdering those women and we, now, have our own for murdering him. We are punishing a man or woman for having no empathy and being so callous that he or she was able to murder, rape or commit other heinous crimes which treat the victims as inhuman. By giving the death penalty to these people we are only propagating that same callousness and lack of empathy. We as a society grow more vile and jaded as a result for this. The fact that almost 4% of death row convicts are innocent is another reason to not have it in practice as the state would be murdering an innocent man for a crime they did not commit. Lastly, death is permanent. It leave no room for change or rehabilitation. Maybe a person is a monster now but in a decade maybe a changed man. Time can do a lot. Yes, murderers and rapists shouldnt be allowed to be a part of society. They should be kept in prisons and they need to be put through rehabilitation programs.
Alright so then what if jurors were never told of the identity of the accused and it was soley up to the judge to order the execution? Problem solved for jurors?
I agree. You point is against the death penalty. But just think if we remove death penalty what will happen. We may not be seeing next morning because murders will be on rise then in that scenario you will not be able to walk think sleep work eat read watch TH-cam easily. Because you will we worried about your life the whole time. And most probably you will get killed by someone else. I understand why we have death penalty today. I also understand that why we should not have death penalty. But in today's world condition death penalty is stopping crime innocent from being killed on a large scale. Not all are saved but man are being saved. It is like numbers. It better to kill one inocent person rather than allowing him to kill 100 innocents daily. I want to kill humans. I would love to do it. But what about victims? I could also be a victim. But if I don't care about victim then I will be a murderer. So it just a thought that is stopping you. That thought can change. Remember even murderer is human being. He was not born murderer. Society made him murderer. If it's human Nature to kill then should we kill all humans? It's human brain that is at fault actually. So shouldn't we removed the memory of the murderer rather than killing the murderer once for all. I know this is something not possible today but my point is there are many factors responsible. Act to me main factor is curiosity of human being. You are cannot stop human from thinking new things. I someone has thought of shooting someone from a new gun he bought how can we stop him?
Lindy's vulnerability and willingness to share her story took immense courage as it required her to be honest about her own shortcomings and biases, while also exposing the potential harm that can be caused to jurors who serve on capital cases. The ethical principle of nonmaleficence, which is the obligation to avoid causing harm, is an essential consideration when individuals serve on a capital jury. Lindy's experience demonstrated that being on a jury for a capital case can be a traumatic experience, not only for the victim's family but also for the jurors themselves. Jurors are asked to make a decision that could ultimately lead to someone's death, which can take a toll on their mental and emotional well-being. As Lindy shared, the trauma from her experience led to years of guilt and regret, causing her to question whether her decision was truly just. The ethical principle of justice is also central to the decision of sentencing someone to the death penalty. Capital punishment is one of the most severe punishments a person can receive, and it is crucial that the decision is made fairly and impartially. However, as Lindy reflected on her experience, she realized that the system is not always just. Biases and prejudices can influence a juror's decision, and in some cases, innocent people have been put to death. It is essential to examine the flaws in the system to ensure that justice is being served and that innocent lives are not being taken. The ethical decision of the death penalty is a complex and controversial topic. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary punishment for heinous crimes, while opponents argue that it is morally wrong and that there is a risk of executing innocent people. As Lindy reflected on her experience, she realized that the decision to sentence someone to death should not be taken lightly and should truly come from one’s own, independent decision making opposed to making the decision that the majority has supported. It is essential to weigh the evidence and consider all the factors when making such a significant decision that could ultimately lead to someone's death.
If those who select a jury ask you the question “will you be prepared to sentence a person to death if they are responsible?” You can honestly answer “yes”, even if you are against the death penalty. For the simple reason that no one is responsible for his/her actions, since the universe is "aresponsible" and is deterministic, and free will is a stupid human invention without foundation, and finally that we are all innocent to exist therefore from our acts. Moreover, if this person had to be executed, it would also be necessary to execute the whole of humanity which is jointly responsible for the existence of this person, for his education, and therefore for his acts. When we do not know how to make a person or educate him, and the world into which we introduce this person is a mess, we can not blame him; we are complicit in his actions and especially in the state of the world. Humanity as a whole is infinitely worse than a single individual even a "horrible" criminal.
Before you feel bad for the murderer, instead of interviewing him, why not interview the family of the person murdered and see how they feel and how their lives have been....
@Miles Coverdale I don't think you're giving emotions enough credit, as having feelings can enable people to make good, moral decisions. Emotionality isn't always a negative trait to have. I disagree with captial punishment because I personally believe that committing a heinous crime does not reduce the value of one's life below that of someone who has not committed such a crime. Everybody deserves to live if they want to.
I think that no one has the right to decide who should live and who should not. I am against death penalty for several reasons. Firstly, there is a growing number of court sentences that are made by mistake. Thus, innocent people are locked down and after some time the court reopens the case and finds the convict as being innocent. In the case when the innocent was sentenced to a death penalty, and it is being executed, when the court changes the sentence it would be late and immediately up to 11 people, the jury and the judge, become murderers because it was them who “killed” the innocent. Secondly, usually, people that are sentenced to death committed a very serious crime - murder. In my opinion, these people have mental problems and should be placed in mental hospital instead of prisons and death penalty
No you cannot say that every murderer is a mentally retarded. Act me in 99% cases that I have seen or heard or read about the murderer is completed normal person and he has his own reasons to kill other human. Most of the times it is due to anger, then social pressure ( like in cases of family honor murders), fight, money, land, war, just casual/thrill murders( gun violence in US) . I'm just saying people who commit murders are normal human beings. I am also capable of doing a murder. You are also capable to do a murder. In some situations we can do it. I have questioned myself this question that will I kill a human if there will be punishment for that murder. Also there will no social pressure or degradation of being called a murderer. In this case will i kill a human. The answer to this question comes out to be 99% yes. I would like to shoot someone with a AK47 or grenade or some other automatic guns. So if for me answer if yes. Same could be for a murderer. Do we need punish him for this? Well from victim perspective the answer is yes most of the times. If i am the victim and someone killed me i would like him to killed too. Simple. But i understand that people want to kill. So we need to find a solution to this problem where people can kill each other without having any victim at all.
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by shooting passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with white caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the rifles pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would shoot him quickly and have done with it.’
She should not have served if she couldn't handle the responsibility. Being the father of a murdered child, and having watched him turn grey, I'm fine with the death penalty. This nonsense just pisses me off...
Execution doesn't reduce murder rates. There are no governments with the legal power to kill, which do not misuse their power. So, take that power away.
i wonder how many times people have been sentenced to things because people felt too intimidated to truly speak their mind. it’s crazy because for all we know not one person in that jury wanted him to receive the death penalty.
Juliana Silva i wouldn’t necessarily feel guilty i just don’t agree with the death penalty. i would rather someone actually pay for their crimes by going to jail
A good reason to be against the death penalty is that sometimes we get it wrong, and end up killing an innocent person. But if you are absolutely 100% positive without a shadow of a doubt that someone is a total monster with no hope for improvement, then I think killing them is an overall positive thing for the world. It prevents them from causing future harm to innocent people.
"if you are absolutely 100% positive without a shadow of a doubt that someone is a total monster with no hope for improvement" How can you ever truly know that? The only case I can imagine this applying to would be to Anders Breivik. But then again, that's not even 100% certain. He may have a serious and complex psychiatric disorder that lead him to believe that what he did was righteous. At the moment, he believes he did an unlawful thing for the greater good, not unlike how Hitler dislikes the killing of the Jews, but believed it to be a necessary evil. Of course, that does not excuse the crime committed, but imagine if he was treated for his psychiatric disorder and came to truly realise the horror of his actions. In that case, he would not be a danger to others anymore, although he would likely be a serious danger to himself. Would it make sense to kill such a man? A man who truly repents and regrets his actions. I don't believe it does. On the other hand, letting him go would be an injustice to the relatives of his victims, so I don't think he should ever be let out given his extreme crime. Let him work and do good in the world as a means to aid his consciousness and I think that would be the ideal solution. Or maybe he won't ever repent and see his crime for what it is. But we will never know since we cannot see the future. That's why I don't believe in the death penalty. But I can absolutely understand those who disagree with me for the reasons that you do.
@Juliana Silva she said "he was a monster" this means the mans crime probably was not understandable. Therefore the law of death penalty was probably rightfully his. It is my opinion that, rather than having society use hundreds of thousands of dollars on keeping him in prison, one day releasing him, uncertain of his mental state? I say do society a social and economical favour and give the death penalty to unjustified murderers, paedophiles, and serious violent and sexual offender and the world will be a better place.
@Juliana Silva so, what you're saying is that after all the evidence was presented, and both sides had their say, they went into jury deliberation (this is normal procedure), and she still decided that evidence which entirely damned him was not sufficient to sway her internal "not guilty", and she caved and went with the evidence? She went in wanting to believe he was not guilty. And she still wanted to believe it through the deliberation. That's not impartial, that's biased.
Putting normal people to decide over the life or death of a fellow human being, no matter how repulsive they may be, it's utterly cruel. If you want to convict someone to death, give that decision to someone with power, a high court judge, some lord or president, give them the weight of their power, then the law will be a bit more fair
I can understand how she feels. Nowadays I'm asking myself the same question as a citizen of my country India/ world and also as a rational Human being. Question is : ARE WE DOING CORRECT TO KILL A MURDER BY GIVING HIM DEATH PENALTY. DOES HE REALLY DESERVE DEATH PENALTY FOR WHAT HE DID. I understand why we have death PENALTY today in many places, because death penalty is surely stopping people from doing crimes but but but for how long it can stop crimes?? Because as we are growing and more people are having different opinions against death penalty i believe it will be removed with 20 years may be. We need an alternative.
Just got back from jury duty. They didn't use us. I knew i wanted a 12 angry men moment if one oresented itself to me but nope. Just wasted my time. My unending sorror for the misunderstood went wasted.
Apparently not everyone can be a juror. You can't just silence your conscience or abandon your feelings overnight. But my conclusion from this talk is that jurors are guilty - of being unable to separate duty of social justice from their personal lives. Roughly speaking : - your depression or PTSD due to death penalty is not the proof against it - don't bring your work back home with you
You should feel like a murderer if you let a murderer live. This woman don't have the tools to be a juror. When a FBI agent can't handle the job, the don't change the rules they get somebody who can do the job.
Brittle spirit, if you feel so bad for the villian who in this case was guilty beyond doubt, then why don't you feel for the victim and their family and friends? Generally speaking it is better to forgive if the victim regrets their actions and won't do it again, but this was a pitiful display of emotions for the wrong person. Did he deserve his death? God only knows, but the death penalty is definitely necessary for those who do not regret about their actions or even worse - Brag about them and are willing to do it again if they know they won't get caught. The counseliing for Jurors is a good idea though.
The defendant in the case she speaks of, spoke the greatest truth of her entire presentation. When he told her that she and none of the other jurors put him in that spot; that he put himself on Death Row, that was truth. It's interesting to me that she chose to reach out to the assailant and not the victim's family. Where is her empathy for the family that suffers from this tragic loss by his hand? Not judging, just asking.
She fails sadly to understand, he was a murderer. But he was not murdered, he was killed. Perhaps that is why she struggled not understanding this. That and she never should have agree to be a juror if she could not handle the results. So what is just? Taking one life of those whom take from others? Or should we lock them up for life and Tax payers pay 40K a year for their term of stay. There in in justice and our system is indeed broken, but you do not fix it by not holding those accountable for their acts. If that criminal thought he put him self there, then he knew he was guilty, yet did not plead guilty, and kept filing for appeals. The truth of whom he is in simply right there.
The US justice system is a system that focuses on punishment, that is why tax payers pay so much for it. We aren't paying to fix the problem by rehabilitating offenders so they can later re-enter into society reformed and better equipped to live honest lives. We stigmatize them saying they are "dangerous", "out of control", and "unpredictable" meaning that even those that are released are often left without resources or even a friend in the world to help them get back on track. If our tax money went towards reforming individuals as apposed to keeping them confined for life our spending would actually decrease because more individuals would remain out of prisons instead of ending up back in them and the amount of time they spend their would also decrease saving money. The system is broken but its not because we don't punish enough its because we don't seek justice and rehabilitation and instead we seek vengeance.
I was foreman on a jury for a triple murder trial. One of the victims was a 5 year old girl that was shot point blank. The guy admitted it. We voted for the death penalty because there really was no other option according to the law. I didn't make the law and I didn't kill the people and I sleep quite well at night. The judge was against the death penalty for financial reasons because it costs the state an outrageous amount of money versus life in prison.
Singapur it's not civilizided? México din't have death penalty and go and search for yourself the DAILY bizarre killings. Like predators from a horror film or even worse.
@@cclander Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Singapore. The city-state had the second highest per-capita execution rate in the world between 1994 and 1998, estimated by the United Nations to be 13.83 executions annually per one million people during that period - this means that Singapore is *not* a civilized country. Capital punishment in Mexico was officially abolished on 15 March 2005, having not been used in civil cases since 1937, and in military cases since 1961. Mexico is the world's most populous country to have completely abolished the death penalty - this means that Mexico *is* a civilized country. You confuse technological advance with civilization, and poverty and violence among a segment of the population with non-civilization.
Wilcher met Katie Belle Moore and Velma Odell Noblin at a Scott County bar and at closing time persuaded the women to take him home. Under this pretext, he directed the women down a deserted service road in the Bienville National Forest where he robbed and brutally murdered the women by stabbing them a total of 46 times. Thereafter, Wilcher was stopped for speeding by the Forest Police Department between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. He was alone and was driving victim Noblin's car. The victims' purses and one victim's brassiere were on the back seat. Wilcher was covered in blood; he had a bloody knife in his back pocket that had flesh on the blade. Wilcher explained his condition by telling the policeman that he had cut his thumb while skinning a possum. The officer followed Wilcher to the hospital, where Wilcher's wound was cleaned and covered with a band-aid. Another officer was called to the hospital to observe Wilcher, the knife, the car, the purses, and the brassiere. The officers left the hospital on an emergency call. Wilcher went home. The next morning, he abandoned Noblin's car at an apartment complex. Wilcher also threw the victims' purses and some of the victims' clothing in a ditch. He was arrested later that day. The victims' jewelry was subsequently found in Wilcher's bedroom.
The death penalty might be less cruel if you think about it. Life in Prison puts a 25 year old man in prison for 60+ years. Because its life in prison you get to enjoy maximum security for a long time. If prison was so wonderful we would use it to end homelessness. It's not, and the people who are in there are there for a reason. Life in Prison versus the Death Penalty. On one hand you are making decades of misery stew and everyone in there will be forever corrupted. On the other hand you are as a society playing a game of eye for an eye. (Eye for an eye doesnt work out well btw)
Aron Linde keeping them alive( say for 25+ ) also cost precious taxpayers money 💵 which can be used for other useful purposes We need to be realistic; what has humane and peaceful ways of engineering and combing violence achieved so extraordinary !!! It’s a popular saying among my friends in India: Today peace can in today’s world be afforded by only the rich and powerful.
As someone who almost ended killing themselves. I don't think you understand. At this point I would rather be alive then had killed myself even if my life was awful.
Life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty because we over invest into death penalty cases. And I am sure for many it varies if they would rather die or be caged for the rest of their lives. I am curious if we get to life spans exceeding 200 years how this will play out.
I read that in Japan the execution is always held between 9-10 a.m in morning. so everyday starting that prisoner wakes up until 10 a.m is the real punishment. dead execution can be a happy end for him or a sad one for his victim's side or even may be vice versa. who knows? but if there is no death penalty there won't be any deterrent for everyone
As much as I'd love to see justice dealt to the most heinous criminals, it is more important to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place. Prison currently doesn't help anyone become a better person but if we changed it to be rehabilitative and at least give prisoners the opportunity to do good work for society, it would help stop criminals from committing more crimes in the future. Plus, 1 out of 7 people given the death penalty are later found to be innocent of the crime they were given the death penalty for, and that's only the people we know about. Protecting innocents is far more important than petty justice, much as it hurts me, someone who had a best friend murdered, to say. And a final point, the best justice may not always be an "eye for an eye". Making someone who previously justified murder no longer capable of justifying murder in their head anymore will make them go crazy trying to undo their mistakes. Have these people speak to kids at school, tell them about much it fucking sucks to be a murderer. If you just kill them, you are letting them off without truly having them feel bad about any of their mistakes.
I agree with you I do have one question if anyone had killed your granddaughter will you still fill the same I myself can't find it in me to agree with the death penalty as long as there possibility of parole
She sounds like a person who cares about all people to me, not just her pen. When you care about all people you don't think this way. You don't chsnge your values depending on who the victim is.
@@Shakirbindahir1998 not taking revenge is not caring for the victims. Not killing perpetrators of crimebdoes not absolve them of consequences. An eye for an eye is very unenlightened thinking which thankfully most people have evolved from.
@Matthew Hysler that's ok. I realise that beliefs like yours come from a place of lack of understanding on the subject and really come from a place of ego, nothing more. No offence intended. However, I must add that one of the main reasons the death penalty is wrong is that there are too many innocent people wrongly convicted for anyone to never execute someone who has not committed the crime. It could even happen to you.
How to execute a person whom society desired, of whom she participated in the existence, the birth, and above all the education, and whom she confronted with the fait accompli of existing without her consent? When we don't know how to fabricate a person or how to educate him/her, and the world in which we insert her/him is a jungle, why put him/her in this world and then blame her/him for his/her actions? May those who did not know how to educate this person, that they punish themselves or reform themselves!
The death penalty not only punishes the convict, it also punishes his family, friends, and the sensitive-minded members of the court system. I could add more but it would take up too much space.
If someone makes the choice to kill someone, then he is responsible for his actions as well as the consequences. The jurors did not make that decision--the monster did, therefore the jurors should not feel like this woman. Why feel sorry for the monster? Feel sorrow for their victims.
Because she can only speak to her experience, not someone else's. She heavily implied, but never explicitly stated that she was against the death penalty, just advocated that those who are called upon as jurors should be aware of their convictions and the consequences of their actions before deliberating.
Shame he didn't feel the same way about his victim as you did for him. ¬_¬ Think about it this way, what's the alternative? Force tax-payers to pay for his room and board for decades? 😒
Quite honestly, I agree with her on many levels. The death penalty may be the end of everything, but it has these negative social feedbacks, that only escalates the mind of young souls to think in that direction. Take a moment to ponder on this. Children who aren't even in high school yet speak of killing and taking life with absolutely no mental hindrance. Of course, some actions are abhorrent enough to demand such gruesome end, however, incarceration FOR LIFE may also be an alternative way to punish the wrongdoers...
Maybe one day we can put criminals like that, in a virtual prison that feels like a lifetime or maybe 10. But in reality is only a few minutes. Or maybe even test to see if they would do it again, after they did their time. call it virtual parole...
@Miles Coverdale I'm not a spiritual person. But if i was i would say... All of our spirits come from the same place none good or bad. it all boils down to the temptation and suffering of the World we live in. Some pour souls are simply exposed to more then others. Whats the saying? Lifes not fair, or To walk a mile in someones else's shoes.
We live in a society that has laws. Members of that society agreed to live by those laws or suffer the consequences. If one commits a heinous act of murdering another member of that society, the consequence is that person is removed from society…completely. And jurors are not murderers They are simply the means of helping to determine if the prosecution has laid out the case to convict a person.
"...he spent endless days in his cell, no sunlight, so his eyes were as black as his hair and his mustache. He was very intimidating and there was absolutely no doubt in his guilt. But regardless of his guilt, as the days passed, I began to see this monster as a human being".
@Miles Coverdale human beings who do terrible things are still human beings, they're not monsters devoid of conscience, they have their own thoughts that lead them down their own path, but instead of getting rid of the problem by killing the person wouldn't it be wiser and more just to heal them before they commit any crime and/or actually punish them after.
as far as i'm concerned... criminals know of the consequences of their actions... trials are done to see if the public sees any kind of remorse or ability to be re-abilitated... so their victims families and such can move on... you did not decide to murder them, they do that when they commit the crimes that earned them the penalty..... so you can say you think its wrong all ya want...but i want the death penalty to be expanded... to include any crime that the criminal would spend life in prison...being that the human life expectancy can be assumed... at a medium rate...(last time i looked 80 for men and 88 for women) because prisons loose their power. you see prison is meant to reabilitate... its meant to influence who they are to be better than they where,,,, so they can rejoin the civilian population ...but if they never get out...than the prison term is a joke... they may change ... but they'll never outlive the penance for their crimes.
i also think the appeal system thou nice is also more of a joke. you see in the old days... when a criminal was sentenced to death, they would hang or shoot them within hours or days of the end of the trial... to spend 20-30 years waiting for the penalty to be served.... its a f****ng joke.... the money we spend on imprisoning them could be refunneled into real efforts of rabilitiation instead of the holding cells we currently have... at the same time, if an appeal and a trial do happen to exonerate them ... then the state would grant the family a monetary settlement, based on the loss of income that individual would have made... idk the duration of time implicated for the award thou... i would also like to hold lawyers/ prosecuters accountable for when an appeal does prove innocents... especilly if it turns out they withheld information or manipulated the system to win the case... eh ...i could go on for days...peace.
Regardless, counseling for the jurors is a good idea. The idea is bipartisan, post-partisan, really - people who do their civic duty and put a man to death should get some help dealing with that, if they need it.
Jury duty is thee most annoying and sometimes inconvenient thing I have ever had to do. 1.Those days of work are not covered so I lose money. 2.My parking is not covered so then I have to pay to lose money. 3.The important things like buying groceries or getting laundry done or getting things in on time are now disrupted. 4.I wouldn't call her a survivor of anything. She was asked if she could validate implementing it and it's not like she said no. I do understand providing counseling for those who end up with these feelings. For school debate I was for the death penalty, and for my defense I suggested that if we're going to be as bold as to take a life we should also think about things like how much time and energy is wasted be sentencing life in prison. I'd much rather those people be able to volunteer themselves into doing things like medical testing (Cutting back on animal testing) or public janitorial services like cleaning up thier local cities, handaling recycling and living out thier lives by giving back. Utalize them in a way that benifits the society a jury has decided they are not safe to be around. This is all with thier consent to it being a priority of course but being copped up in a cell seems less appealing then picking up trash or learning how to properly recycle 🤷🏾♀️ijs
If I had my way, I would turn jails into places to get re educated and learn new skills to get you back in the work force, and you get 2 strikes, 2nd strike and your out meaning death penalty. But these strikes will not be for trivial crimes of course.
The problem with "strikes" is that there is no objectivity. There are people who killed for a good reason, which still is morally wrong. There are people who kill once but in a way which makes clear that society has to be protected from them. Also either of the strikes could still be a flawed conviction. There is no good way of applying a binary principle on an analogue reality, no matter how many incrementations one goes through.
How did all jurors vote on the death penalty at the ballot box originally and was this question asked during selection? Yes, everyone is blameworthy who voted this way for the death penalty and religion is once again distorting reality.
While this is a great presentation this is an inappropriate Ted talk. It’s a completely emotional argument presented with an intense bias for one side. What if she started this by saying the man r*ped and m*rdered two girls and a wife in front of a husband and left the husband alive to suffer. What if this same person was not just remorseless but antagonizing during the trial. Would that make you feel differently if those facts were presented during this talk? What if they were a domestic terrorist who killed 15 people? Emotional arguments are dangerous because they by their nature chip away at our ability to rationally look at a situation.
no we just need better non snowflake juror's if you cant hack it then dont do it. opt out say your racist say whatever just dont do it.if someone cant do a job they dont change the job. they get someone that can.
But do the victims feel happy with the outcome? They are the real people that this should be about, not the people on the jury, its not about feelings.
It's completely about feelings. You said, "do the victims *feel* happy with the outcome?" You're contradicting yourself. Also, the mental health of these people on the jury is important. They should not be burdened with an inhumane decision like that.
@@ramyar2000 I've seen so many times people who support the DP contradict themselves. In the same sentence they say anyone who kills forfeited their life, while saying kill more people. It's scary that these people are like this and they shouldn't be taking seriously.
People should go through a mental test to see if they are capable of giving death penalty to someone who’s guilty. Other wise people could go free because people are to scared to find them guilt or even suffer like this women has.
Yeah, yeah, lovely story, go write a book or better, don't ever be a juror. No man is allowed to take another one's life, period. And if you do pardon a killer that had all the evidences for his guilt and death penalty sentence, and he kills again, aren't you indirectly responsible for the death of a victim? Yeah, you do.
@@franticranter prison? You do know they kill each other pretty often there too, and not if it's like a bad thing but, some people are there for other reasons than killing and I don't think it s fair. But the problem is that they get out, and how many cases of people getting out of prison that kill again are? You d be amazed.
Funny how she has turned the story out to be " All about herself ! " Reason some individuals should never be allowed on Juries or hold political office …. Reasoning , Logic , and Critical Thinking Skills are replace with " Feeling " and Emotional Incapability of making a rational , educated decision concerning subjects ! Same type of individuals that are easily Manipulated and have NO MORAL Basis in life that is anchored in their belief system ! Which ever the wind is blowing , is her Moral Compass for the day ? th-cam.com/video/CyBcHUe4WeQ/w-d-xo.html
@@franticranter you do know that our prisons are overcrowded in a lot of states because those states don't believe in the death penalty for heinous, evil crimes? Just life sentences. At least, that's as far as I know.
You were a victim too, and a true Christian as opposed to all those hypocrites in our government. Some years after, unfortunately, your experience, a CONSERVATIVE midwestern governor banned the death penalty after DNA evidence cleared MANY of the accused of their crimes. I feel bad for you, but admire your good heart, openness to rethinking, and LIVING your faith.
Did you try and reach out and become friends with the victims family’s? Oh, of course not..Do you think maybe they are suffering from a form of PTSD?? Too bad the victims can’t stop by for margarita anymore ( crowd laughs)..poor you! Appeasing your guilt by asking forgiveness from a POS who stabbed 2 women 46 times.... This is a sticking display being thrown in the faces of 2 innocent victims and their family’s...
Honestly this sounds kinda selfish. You're going to be against the death penalty because you can't handle making the decision of sentencing a dangerous murderer to death? If that guy killed her son and raped then murdered her granddaughter I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have this dilemma.
I think rapers of any kind, regular rapers or pedophiles should be put to death when proved guilty. Not sure about murderers tho, this nice speech opens a debate for me but didn't put me in any direction in particular.
"We can't sentence murderers to death because feelings." Let's see how long your feelings last when you have to personally pay for their life in prison by raising your taxes if you voted for ending the death penalty. Of course she doesn't even mention jury nullification, wouldn't want the masses to get any ideas in other cases like non-violent drug users and dealers.
Accused shouldn't have been executed,because it took 22 years for implementation..if the jury had such traumatic time,just imagine what the accused would have gone through waiting for his Death penalty.
You had the responsibility to say what you really think. Instead, you go with the others even though you didn't want too. And then you say the system is broken in the next breath. I think you are not qualified to be in the position you are in. You put yourself through trauma you didn't have the stomach to manage. People need to realise that if your not comfortable you shouldn't put yourself through it. I do agree with counselling for the jurors. And I know that responsibilities require action. But they also require a steady mind when it comes to life and death. It's not something everyone can do. People need to be tested for this kind of thing. If you lose your cool during a real-life situation your no use to anyone. You can even be more detrimental. The talking shouldn't be after you lost your nerve. It should be pre, during and post everything that can be traumatic.
@@sarastewart4379 I didn't mean for it to sound like that and you have my apologies. I was thinking more alone the lines of "we need to be educated and have gone through a lot of mock situations so you don't have to freak out due to not knowing how to feel or how to react to something in a job" hope this helps explain a little better
So, you lied to yourself at first and then gave into your emotions and are now trying to convince yourself that the death penalty is cruel and wrong? Umm... no. If someone murders another in cold blood, they deserve to die. That's just the facts of life. Also, you said that the judicial system is broken, but you also said that the guy was guilty of murder. Seems to me like the system worked just fine. Oh, and giving fair justice to the fallen does not make you a murderer--- it makes you a hero.
@@zalbortroxzalbortox1565 nice hyperbole. You failed to catch that all the evidence in the case showed he was guilty of murdering someone with a knife. In this case, he deserved the penalty he got.
joseph stearman think the problem is makeing people vote on death penalty who arnt mentality capable to do it. They should do a test on jury to see if there capable of it. Coz some people go free when they shouldn’t because of this.
The reasons against the death penalty are numerous. The system of jury trial is a sound one, and in my opinion, the best possible system. I was a British barrister for 32 years and conducted hundreds of jury trials over that time, I believe in the jury system, but jury trial is fallible, like all human endeavors. One needs to consider the skill and experience of the advocate. I have seen TV documentaries from the US where very inexperienced public defenders were given serious cases to defend against experienced district attorneys, that is unbalanced and wholly unfair. The defendants usually being poor people from minority groups. We have to deal with biased judges, judges are people and do a fantastic job (in my opinion), but they are fallible and capable of showing human emotion. Sometimes it can cloud their otherwise objective judgement. A lack of full evidential disclosure, a lack of disclosure of unused material, occurs in many cases and is fatal to a fair trial. All these factors can affect the outcome of a jury trial and render a conviction unsafe or suspect. Generally, courts of appeal should be slow to overturn a conviction unless there are compelling reasons. If the appeal court routinely allows appeals, especially on facts found by the jury, it is replacing the jury’s verdict and conclusions with their own. That is dangerous. It is important, therefore, to ensure a full disclosure of all evidence, and a fair trial on that evidence,. So, we must approach the whole exercise of fact finding and verdict with caution, the trial itself needs to be flawless and beyond reproach. Sadly, that is not always the case, especially with notorious crimes. Executing an innocent man is as bad as the original crime. The death penalty, if promptly implemented, removes appeals. Delayed implementation of a death sentence removes the punishment from the crime and so diminishes the purpose and impact of the penalty, it renders it meaningless. Delaying a sentence is also a harsh additional punishment to the defendant. The punishment is death, not a lifetime incarcerated with uncertainty and the degradation of prison life to be then executed in old age! A prisoner is entitled to know his fate, not exist in the void of death row. But most importantly imprisonment for life, removing a person from the normal congregation of human society, achieves the same result. If there are objections raised by possible parole then the parole system needs to be reformed. The use of a jury and judge with a parole panel might be one solution. However, the real rational for the death penalty is deterrence and societal retribution. Revenge has no place in a civilized, rational system of criminal justice. Revenge is the act of a family member or friend, not the act of the state. Revenge leads to vendetta and the total breakdown of civil society, that’s why we have a system of state sponsored rational, objective justice that allows the state to punish the citizen for wrongdoing. Revenge is the unthinking act of an angry mob or relative. When speaking of the death penalty people must remain objective and not sink into the morass of emotionally charged rhetoric. People need to ask what is the purpose of the penalty, does the penalty achieve its objectives, are there alternative ways of achieving the same result? As I state above the main reasons for the death penalty are to deter others and to show society’s disgust at the act of murder, society demands retribution. All of these objectives can be achieved with a sentence of life imprisonment. The death penalty may satisfy certain members of society and give them retribution, but there is no objective evidence to show the death penalty acts as a deterrence to murder. On the contrary, the vast majority of murders are committed within the family or by people known to the victim. Random murder, or the targeting of a vulnerable member of society, like a child, by predators is, thankfully, rare. In my humble opinion, the case for the death penalty is not made out. We abolished it in England in 1965 and it was removed from the statute books for murder in 1968. Since then the death penalty has been removed for all of the remaining crimes, including arson of Her Majesty’s dockyards! This is an emotive issue with people passionate on both sides. The discussion will continue. I will say this, if you intend to continue executing people in America you need to find a much more efficient and uniform method of doing so. Lethal injection is a ridiculous method and very often botched. Hanging, properly done, is by far the best method. I don’t know why you ever moved away from this tried and tested method.
Countries that have rescinded the death penalty = UK, Canada, Germany, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands...countries that still have it = North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, US....what a great group you are part of...
Im sorry but you are seeing it wrong, the law gave it death penalty, you just gave guilty confirmation, I understand your stress and drama but I do not understand your sense of guilt for death penalty
I hate it when people monetize life. How would you feel if it was your mum or your dad or someone else you were close to? Would you want them put to death or would you want them in prison for 70yrs at whatever cost so you can still see them? You might say well my parents wouldn't do that but that's besides the point, either someone is someone's son/daughter or someone is someone's mother/father and they may not have thought they'd find themselves in that situation either. If society believes in the preservation of life then it should preserve life.
@@VoodooDuck nope, i more have a problem with us locking people in cages for decades. Being put in dangerous environments where they're statistically way more likely to be murdered or raped or what have you than they would out of prison. And on the lesser side, yea i dont wanna pay for that. The prison system sucks.
If the death penalty is part of the culture in Mississippi and everyone knows that murder will result in the death penalty, then the murderer should have expected this before he decided to kill someone. Sorry, but this lady is delusional.
You don't get the point of this video, laws can be changed, the guy was obviously guilty but that doesn't mean a death sentence is the right thing to do. Calling someone delusional because they empathise with people is honestly concerning.
@Karraq It doesn’t matter if the death penalty is the right thing. The point is, that’s the punishment for committing murder. This guy knew that this was the consequence of his action, or maybe he didn’t. If he didn’t, then that’s his fault since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse. He should have taken the punishment for murder into consideration before he decided to murder someone. This lady is delusional because almost no focus was on the actual victim of the crime, she victimized the murderer instead.
@@matsitt i understand your point. You are thinking from the victims perspective. For once try to think from a murderer perspective. Think that you have intentionally killed a human. Remember you are that person who is a murderer. Would you say that you deserve death penalty for what you did??? If put myself in that situation I say No i don't deserve death penalty. So wbu?
You couldn’t deliver “without reservation” a penalty of death. You should have replied “no” to the question but you were dishonest and your answer has tormented you ever since but that doesn’t mean the system should be changed.
What crap is this????? Wtf was the whole point???? We have a societal duty to carry out such a decision. It's not normal to dwell in whether or not it's right and it's not normal to get together with others to decide whether or not someone's going to die but as a society we've decided to willingly pay taxes (agency or not), hold communities, town hall meetings, hire sheriff's, firefighters, we have something for its individual purposes. If someone is a threat to life they're to be killed because letting them live is a huge concern to the lives of the free as well as other prisoners. Rapists and murderers shouldn't be any exception. Everyone today is far too coddled by society due to its unnatural level of safety by providing security from natural predators of the wild, healthcare, and food whenever we need it. These things blind us to facts that violence and death are normal parts of life. If you're telling the court "yes" to being able to carry out a death sentence only to later regret it, YOU do not know yourself nor did you have any business making a life n death choice over someone else's life. That's immature and irresponsible.
Regardless of if you’re for or against the death penalty, mental health care and counseling for jurors involved in it is a really great idea.
So they don't have to feel bad taking part in a murder?
Good idea.
I watched this just last night on PBS. This woman has some sort of Stockholm syndrome with out ever being kidnapped. She is infatuated with a murderer. She has keep letters they have wrote back and forth and new paper clippings. She's even kept old packets of ketchup and mayonnaise he once had. I will say it again, she kept Ketchup and mayonnaise packets he had when he was being held in prison. She said her self she has lost friends and FAMILY over this. She can't let go of the past. She has gone to other members she was on the jury with to talk about how they did the wrong thing. One man she visited told her they did the right thing. She left that mans house mad and irrate calling him shallow. Another woman on the jury she tried to contact told her to "please stop calling me,do not come to my house and to leave her alone". Which tell's me she was probably calling and bugging this woman constantly like a mad woman. She even calls the murderer by his first name, and even calls him "her Bobby" She gave him the nick name HER BOBBY. This man killed two woman with NO remorse at all. These two woman had friends and family who loved them. Yet this crazy woman insist that he was a good hearted man. A good hearted man who killed two women. Saying she didn't condon what he did but he didn't deserve the death penalty. This man would have walked away after being held in prison and may have done this again. All the other members of the jury said them selves "He had NO remorse for what he did". He got what he deserved. This woman needs psychiatric help. To lose not only friends but also family over a man you barely knew, a man in prison who killed two women is absolutely insane. She was a married woman who feel in love with another man. A murderer.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
This is what happens when a society forgoes justice for revenge. We start justifying taking a life and loose all restraint. Ever hear of "two wrongs don't make a right"? "An eye for an eye just leaves you both blind"? Why not instead of punishment we teach healing, forgiveness, and growth. We comfort victims and those left behind, and teach the individuals that do such acts how to become better people and give them a second chance. There is no need to let more blood be spilled. The people who committee crimes are sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and so much more because they are people. How much more damage do we want to cause in the pursuit of revenge instead of justice. Blame and punishment are easy, forgiveness and reconciliation are much more difficult.
I want to see rivers of blood spill from the necks of beheaded criminals and innocent victims of miscarriages of justice. After that I could turn their carcasses into valuable substances worth more than they could make in their worthless lives.
Personally, I think killing should only be used as a last resort. It should not be used as a form of justice. Our government, ideally, should be designed as an example of how our society should behave. When there are other solutions available that don't involve killing, we should choose that option first. That is what an ethical society should do. Our justice system should not lower itself to the behavior of the worst in society.
That being said, there are of course other reasons to not support capital punishment, errors in the final judgment, the extra legal costs often costing more than putting someone in jail for life, etc.
My father was murdered when I was eight years old. I myself was shot two times by an active shooter. I am very much against the death penalty. I wish not for death to whoever killed my Dad. I want to know why? And if I had died the night I was shot, I would not want another life lost. What I do want is support, via therapy. And job training, so that I can move on as a survivor. But never loss of life.
Amazing that you keep clear and reflected on the issue especially with your personal story.
I wish you the best.
Marcel, thank you. All the best to you. Ian
Much love to you and I wish good things to you.
My Grandad I overheard years ago talking with my mom's friend and for whatever reason the death penalty was brought up and I remember I my Grandad saying he would not want the death penalty for my killer because my mom's friend asked him.
After doing research on the DP I was so glad my Grandad said that. My mom and my aunt we're also against the DP. Before they all died I did tell them especially my mom to please not support the DP if I was ever killed and I wouldn't want the DP for my loved ones killer either because I recognize that my loved ones life isn't worth more then others loved ones. My mom said she would not want the person killed.
It's ok if no one agrees with me and I've come to hate the death penalty because for me it doesn't sit right morally for me. But hearing my Grandad and my mom say they wouldn't want it really helped and shaped who the person I've become. I want to hang on to my humanity.
she said "we have just sentenced man to death"
"she's been asking herself in the 25 years since the trial: Am I a murderer?"
BUT
She din't sentenced anybody (or any other jury), judge did ...
"The verdict of the jury is a unanimous RECOMMENDATION for the death
penalty to be imposed. It is now incumbent upon the Court to determine whether or not this penalty is appropriate, and the Court will deliberate and make an independent determination using the same weighing process that was employed by the jury"
Most people are missing the point here. She isnt arguing that he wasnt guilty or that he shouldnt be punished, she is raising a question as to whether the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for any crime. Even for murder. We as a people are killing a human being. We are punishing a murderer with murder. He might have had his own rationale, however twisted, for murdering those women and we, now, have our own for murdering him. We are punishing a man or woman for having no empathy and being so callous that he or she was able to murder, rape or commit other heinous crimes which treat the victims as inhuman. By giving the death penalty to these people we are only propagating that same callousness and lack of empathy. We as a society grow more vile and jaded as a result for this. The fact that almost 4% of death row convicts are innocent is another reason to not have it in practice as the state would be murdering an innocent man for a crime they did not commit. Lastly, death is permanent. It leave no room for change or rehabilitation. Maybe a person is a monster now but in a decade maybe a changed man. Time can do a lot. Yes, murderers and rapists shouldnt be allowed to be a part of society. They should be kept in prisons and they need to be put through rehabilitation programs.
Alright so then what if jurors were never told of the identity of the accused and it was soley up to the judge to order the execution? Problem solved for jurors?
I agree. You point is against the death penalty.
But just think if we remove death penalty what will happen. We may not be seeing next morning because murders will be on rise then in that scenario you will not be able to walk think sleep work eat read watch TH-cam easily. Because you will we worried about your life the whole time. And most probably you will get killed by someone else.
I understand why we have death penalty today. I also understand that why we should not have death penalty. But in today's world condition death penalty is stopping crime innocent from being killed on a large scale. Not all are saved but man are being saved. It is like numbers. It better to kill one inocent person rather than allowing him to kill 100 innocents daily.
I want to kill humans. I would love to do it. But what about victims? I could also be a victim. But if I don't care about victim then I will be a murderer. So it just a thought that is stopping you. That thought can change.
Remember even murderer is human being. He was not born murderer. Society made him murderer. If it's human Nature to kill then should we kill all humans?
It's human brain that is at fault actually. So shouldn't we removed the memory of the murderer rather than killing the murderer once for all. I know this is something not possible today but my point is there are many factors responsible. Act to me main factor is curiosity of human being. You are cannot stop human from thinking new things. I someone has thought of shooting someone from a new gun he bought how can we stop him?
Lindy's vulnerability and willingness to share her story took immense courage as it required her to be honest about her own shortcomings and biases, while also exposing the potential harm that can be caused to jurors who serve on capital cases. The ethical principle of nonmaleficence, which is the obligation to avoid causing harm, is an essential consideration when individuals serve on a capital jury. Lindy's experience demonstrated that being on a jury for a capital case can be a traumatic experience, not only for the victim's family but also for the jurors themselves. Jurors are asked to make a decision that could ultimately lead to someone's death, which can take a toll on their mental and emotional well-being. As Lindy shared, the trauma from her experience led to years of guilt and regret, causing her to question whether her decision was truly just. The ethical principle of justice is also central to the decision of sentencing someone to the death penalty. Capital punishment is one of the most severe punishments a person can receive, and it is crucial that the decision is made fairly and impartially. However, as Lindy reflected on her experience, she realized that the system is not always just. Biases and prejudices can influence a juror's decision, and in some cases, innocent people have been put to death. It is essential to examine the flaws in the system to ensure that justice is being served and that innocent lives are not being taken. The ethical decision of the death penalty is a complex and controversial topic. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary punishment for heinous crimes, while opponents argue that it is morally wrong and that there is a risk of executing innocent people. As Lindy reflected on her experience, she realized that the decision to sentence someone to death should not be taken lightly and should truly come from one’s own, independent decision making opposed to making the decision that the majority has supported. It is essential to weigh the evidence and consider all the factors when making such a significant decision that could ultimately lead to someone's death.
If those who select a jury ask you the question “will you be prepared to sentence a person to death if they are responsible?” You can honestly answer “yes”, even if you are against the death penalty. For the simple reason that no one is responsible for his/her actions, since the universe is "aresponsible" and is deterministic, and free will is a stupid human invention without foundation, and finally that we are all innocent to exist therefore from our acts. Moreover, if this person had to be executed, it would also be necessary to execute the whole of humanity which is jointly responsible for the existence of this person, for his education, and therefore for his acts. When we do not know how to make a person or educate him, and the world into which we introduce this person is a mess, we can not blame him; we are complicit in his actions and especially in the state of the world. Humanity as a whole is infinitely worse than a single individual even a "horrible" criminal.
Before you feel bad for the murderer, instead of interviewing him, why not interview the family of the person murdered and see how they feel and how their lives have been....
I'm opposed to capital punishment, so I could never sentence someone to death. Thankfully, we don't have the death penalty in the UK.
@Miles Coverdale Why?
@Miles Coverdale I don't think you're giving emotions enough credit, as having feelings can enable people to make good, moral decisions. Emotionality isn't always a negative trait to have.
I disagree with captial punishment because I personally believe that committing a heinous crime does not reduce the value of one's life below that of someone who has not committed such a crime. Everybody deserves to live if they want to.
@Miles Coverdale I think the people who are for capital punishment are more emotional on the matter.
I think that no one has the right to decide who should live and who should not. I am against death penalty for several reasons. Firstly, there is a growing number of court sentences that are made by mistake. Thus, innocent people are locked down and after some time the court reopens the case and finds the convict as being innocent. In the case when the innocent was sentenced to a death penalty, and it is being executed, when the court changes the sentence it would be late and immediately up to 11 people, the jury and the judge, become murderers because it was them who “killed” the innocent. Secondly, usually, people that are sentenced to death committed a very serious crime - murder. In my opinion, these people have mental problems and should be placed in mental hospital instead of prisons and death penalty
No you cannot say that every murderer is a mentally retarded. Act me in 99% cases that I have seen or heard or read about the murderer is completed normal person and he has his own reasons to kill other human. Most of the times it is due to anger, then social pressure ( like in cases of family honor murders), fight, money, land, war, just casual/thrill murders( gun violence in US) .
I'm just saying people who commit murders are normal human beings. I am also capable of doing a murder. You are also capable to do a murder. In some situations we can do it. I have questioned myself this question that will I kill a human if there will be punishment for that murder. Also there will no social pressure or degradation of being called a murderer. In this case will i kill a human. The answer to this question comes out to be 99% yes. I would like to shoot someone with a AK47 or grenade or some other automatic guns.
So if for me answer if yes. Same could be for a murderer. Do we need punish him for this?
Well from victim perspective the answer is yes most of the times. If i am the victim and someone killed me i would like him to killed too. Simple. But i understand that people want to kill.
So we need to find a solution to this problem where people can kill each other without having any victim at all.
There was a very strange feature in this case, strange because of its extremely rare occurrence. This man had once been brought to the scaffold in company with several others, and had had the sentence of death by shooting passed upon him for some political crime. Twenty minutes later he had been reprieved and some other punishment substituted; but the interval between the two sentences, twenty minutes, or at least a quarter of an hour, had been passed in the certainty that within a few minutes he must die. I was very anxious to hear him speak of his impressions during that dreadful time, and I several times inquired of him as to what he thought and felt. He remembered everything with the most accurate and extraordinary distinctness, and declared that he would never forget a single iota of the experience. ‘About twenty paces from the scaffold, where he had stood to hear the sentence, were three posts, fixed in the ground, to which to fasten the criminals (of whom there were several). The first three criminals were taken to the posts, dressed in long white tunics, with white caps drawn over their faces, so that they could not see the rifles pointed at them. Then a group of soldiers took their stand opposite to each post. My friend was the eighth on the list, and therefore he would have been among the third lot to go up. A priest went about among them with a cross: and there was about five minutes of time left for him to live. ‘He said that those five minutes seemed to him to be a most interminable period, an enormous wealth of time; he seemed to be living, in these minutes, so many lives that there was no need as yet to think of that last moment, so that he made several arrangements, dividing up the time into portions-one for saying farewell to his companions, two minutes for that; then a couple more for thinking over his own life and career and all about himself; and another minute for a last look around. He remembered having divided his time like this quite well. While saying good- bye to his friends he recollected asking one of them some very usual everyday question, and being much interested in the answer. Then having bade farewell, he embarked upon those two minutes which he had allotted to looking into himself; he knew beforehand what he was going to think about. He wished to put it to himself as quickly and clearly as possible, that here was he, a living, thinking man, and that in three minutes he would be nobody; or if somebody or something, then what and where? He thought he would decide this question once
for all in these last three minutes. A little way off there stood a church, and its gilded spire glittered in the sun. He remembered staring stubbornly at this spire, and at the rays of light sparkling from it. He could not tear his eyes from these rays of light; he got the idea that these rays were his new nature, and that in three minutes he would become one of them, amalgamated somehow with them. ‘The repugnance to what must ensue almost immediately, and the uncertainty, were dreadful, he said; but worst of all was the idea, ‘What should I do if I were not to die now? What if I were to return to life again? What an eternity of days, and all mine! How I should grudge and count up every minute of it, so as to waste not a single instant!’ He said that this thought weighed so upon him and became such a terrible burden upon his brain that he could not bear it, and wished they would shoot him quickly and have done with it.’
Thanks for sharing Lindy!
She should not have served if she couldn't handle the responsibility. Being the father of a murdered child, and having watched him turn grey, I'm fine with the death penalty. This nonsense just pisses me off...
Execution doesn't reduce murder rates. There are no governments with the legal power to kill, which do not misuse their power.
So, take that power away.
i wonder how many times people have been sentenced to things because people felt too intimidated to truly speak their mind. it’s crazy because for all we know not one person in that jury wanted him to receive the death penalty.
*okay nvm we do know how many wanted the death penalty hahah
@Juliana Silva it's called having a moral compass. Not everyone is a sociopath that wants to participate in a person's death
Juliana Silva i wouldn’t necessarily feel guilty i just don’t agree with the death penalty. i would rather someone actually pay for their crimes by going to jail
A good reason to be against the death penalty is that sometimes we get it wrong, and end up killing an innocent person. But if you are absolutely 100% positive without a shadow of a doubt that someone is a total monster with no hope for improvement, then I think killing them is an overall positive thing for the world. It prevents them from causing future harm to innocent people.
"if you are absolutely 100% positive without a shadow of a doubt that someone is a total monster with no hope for improvement"
How can you ever truly know that? The only case I can imagine this applying to would be to Anders Breivik. But then again, that's not even 100% certain. He may have a serious and complex psychiatric disorder that lead him to believe that what he did was righteous. At the moment, he believes he did an unlawful thing for the greater good, not unlike how Hitler dislikes the killing of the Jews, but believed it to be a necessary evil. Of course, that does not excuse the crime committed, but imagine if he was treated for his psychiatric disorder and came to truly realise the horror of his actions. In that case, he would not be a danger to others anymore, although he would likely be a serious danger to himself. Would it make sense to kill such a man? A man who truly repents and regrets his actions. I don't believe it does. On the other hand, letting him go would be an injustice to the relatives of his victims, so I don't think he should ever be let out given his extreme crime. Let him work and do good in the world as a means to aid his consciousness and I think that would be the ideal solution. Or maybe he won't ever repent and see his crime for what it is. But we will never know since we cannot see the future. That's why I don't believe in the death penalty. But I can absolutely understand those who disagree with me for the reasons that you do.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
As soon as she said "despite his obvious guilt" i knew she was biased.
@Juliana Silva you don't say that if you're being an impartial judge. You say that if you go into the case feeling one way and one way only.
@Juliana Silva she said "he was a monster" this means the mans crime probably was not understandable. Therefore the law of death penalty was probably rightfully his. It is my opinion that, rather than having society use hundreds of thousands of dollars on keeping him in prison, one day releasing him, uncertain of his mental state? I say do society a social and economical favour and give the death penalty to unjustified murderers, paedophiles, and serious violent and sexual offender and the world will be a better place.
@Juliana Silva so, what you're saying is that after all the evidence was presented, and both sides had their say, they went into jury deliberation (this is normal procedure), and she still decided that evidence which entirely damned him was not sufficient to sway her internal "not guilty", and she caved and went with the evidence? She went in wanting to believe he was not guilty. And she still wanted to believe it through the deliberation. That's not impartial, that's biased.
@Juliana Silva oh i apoligize, i will edit the comment.
@Juliana Silva I may have understood her position somewhat wrong then.
Putting normal people to decide over the life or death of a fellow human being, no matter how repulsive they may be, it's utterly cruel. If you want to convict someone to death, give that decision to someone with power, a high court judge, some lord or president, give them the weight of their power, then the law will be a bit more fair
"Give the powerful the privilege to decide life or death, that is more fair."
Try listening to yourself sometime.
Wtf
nachoijp exactly my thought
Do you want to go back to the 16th century or something.
I can understand how she feels. Nowadays I'm asking myself the same question as a citizen of my country India/ world and also as a rational Human being.
Question is : ARE WE DOING CORRECT TO KILL A MURDER BY GIVING HIM DEATH PENALTY. DOES HE REALLY DESERVE DEATH PENALTY FOR WHAT HE DID.
I understand why we have death PENALTY today in many places, because death penalty is surely stopping people from doing crimes but but but for how long it can stop crimes?? Because as we are growing and more people are having different opinions against death penalty i believe it will be removed with 20 years may be.
We need an alternative.
Just got back from jury duty. They didn't use us. I knew i wanted a 12 angry men moment if one oresented itself to me but nope. Just wasted my time. My unending sorror for the misunderstood went wasted.
Apparently not everyone can be a juror. You can't just silence your conscience or abandon your feelings overnight. But my conclusion from this talk is that jurors are guilty - of being unable to separate duty of social justice from their personal lives. Roughly speaking :
- your depression or PTSD due to death penalty is not the proof against it
- don't bring your work back home with you
But what about combat vets coming home? It's easy to say not to bring work home but there's a lot of trauma that they have to work through.
You should feel like a murderer if you let a murderer live. This woman don't have the tools to be a juror. When a FBI agent can't handle the job, the don't change the rules they get somebody who can do the job.
Considering how wonky the human mind is, the death penalty isn't a good idea.
Brittle spirit, if you feel so bad for the villian who in this case was guilty beyond doubt, then why don't you feel for the victim and their family and friends? Generally speaking it is better to forgive if the victim regrets their actions and won't do it again, but this was a pitiful display of emotions for the wrong person. Did he deserve his death? God only knows, but the death penalty is definitely necessary for those who do not regret about their actions or even worse - Brag about them and are willing to do it again if they know they won't get caught.
The counseliing for Jurors is a good idea though.
The defendant in the case she speaks of, spoke the greatest truth of her entire presentation. When he told her that she and none of the other jurors put him in that spot; that he put himself on Death Row, that was truth. It's interesting to me that she chose to reach out to the assailant and not the victim's family. Where is her empathy for the family that suffers from this tragic loss by his hand? Not judging, just asking.
She fails sadly to understand, he was a murderer. But he was not murdered, he was killed. Perhaps that is why she struggled not understanding this. That and she never should have agree to be a juror if she could not handle the results. So what is just? Taking one life of those whom take from others? Or should we lock them up for life and Tax payers pay 40K a year for their term of stay. There in in justice and our system is indeed broken, but you do not fix it by not holding those accountable for their acts. If that criminal thought he put him self there, then he knew he was guilty, yet did not plead guilty, and kept filing for appeals. The truth of whom he is in simply right there.
The US justice system is a system that focuses on punishment, that is why tax payers pay so much for it. We aren't paying to fix the problem by rehabilitating offenders so they can later re-enter into society reformed and better equipped to live honest lives. We stigmatize them saying they are "dangerous", "out of control", and "unpredictable" meaning that even those that are released are often left without resources or even a friend in the world to help them get back on track. If our tax money went towards reforming individuals as apposed to keeping them confined for life our spending would actually decrease because more individuals would remain out of prisons instead of ending up back in them and the amount of time they spend their would also decrease saving money. The system is broken but its not because we don't punish enough its because we don't seek justice and rehabilitation and instead we seek vengeance.
I was foreman on a jury for a triple murder trial. One of the victims was a 5 year old girl that was shot point blank. The guy admitted it. We voted for the death penalty because there really was no other option according to the law. I didn't make the law and I didn't kill the people and I sleep quite well at night. The judge was against the death penalty for financial reasons because it costs the state an outrageous amount of money versus life in prison.
Civilized countries do not have the death penalty, and civilized people are against the death penalty.
Singapur it's not civilizided? México din't have death penalty and go and search for yourself the DAILY bizarre killings. Like predators from a horror film or even worse.
@@cclander Capital punishment is a legal penalty in Singapore. The city-state had the second highest per-capita execution rate in the world between 1994 and 1998, estimated by the United Nations to be 13.83 executions annually per one million people during that period - this means that Singapore is *not* a civilized country. Capital punishment in Mexico was officially abolished on 15 March 2005, having not been used in civil cases since 1937, and in military cases since 1961. Mexico is the world's most populous country to have completely abolished the death penalty - this means that Mexico *is* a civilized country. You confuse technological advance with civilization, and poverty and violence among a segment of the population with non-civilization.
Wilcher met Katie Belle Moore and Velma Odell Noblin at a Scott County bar and at closing time persuaded the women to take him home. Under this pretext, he directed the women down a deserted service road in the Bienville National Forest where he robbed and brutally murdered the women by stabbing them a total of 46 times. Thereafter, Wilcher was stopped for speeding by the Forest Police Department between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. He was alone and was driving victim Noblin's car. The victims' purses and one victim's brassiere were on the back seat. Wilcher was covered in blood; he had a bloody knife in his back pocket that had flesh on the blade. Wilcher explained his condition by telling the policeman that he had cut his thumb while skinning a possum. The officer followed Wilcher to the hospital, where Wilcher's wound was cleaned and covered with a band-aid. Another officer was called to the hospital to observe Wilcher, the knife, the car, the purses, and the brassiere. The officers left the hospital on an emergency call. Wilcher went home. The next morning, he abandoned Noblin's car at an apartment complex. Wilcher also threw the victims' purses and some of the victims' clothing in a ditch. He was arrested later that day. The victims' jewelry was subsequently found in Wilcher's bedroom.
awe, you can tell she really regrets it :((
Good for her!
The death penalty might be less cruel if you think about it. Life in Prison puts a 25 year old man in prison for 60+ years. Because its life in prison you get to enjoy maximum security for a long time.
If prison was so wonderful we would use it to end homelessness. It's not, and the people who are in there are there for a reason.
Life in Prison versus the Death Penalty. On one hand you are making decades of misery stew and everyone in there will be forever corrupted. On the other hand you are as a society playing a game of eye for an eye. (Eye for an eye doesnt work out well btw)
Aron Linde keeping them alive( say for 25+ ) also cost precious taxpayers money 💵 which can be used for other useful purposes
We need to be realistic; what has humane and peaceful ways of engineering and combing violence achieved so extraordinary !!!
It’s a popular saying among my friends in India: Today peace can in today’s world be afforded by only the rich and powerful.
As someone who almost ended killing themselves. I don't think you understand. At this point I would rather be alive then had killed myself even if my life was awful.
Life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty because we over invest into death penalty cases.
And I am sure for many it varies if they would rather die or be caged for the rest of their lives.
I am curious if we get to life spans exceeding 200 years how this will play out.
I read that in Japan the execution is always held between 9-10 a.m in morning. so everyday starting that prisoner wakes up until 10 a.m is the real punishment. dead execution can be a happy end for him or a sad one for his victim's side or even may be vice versa. who knows? but if there is no death penalty there won't be any deterrent for everyone
As much as I'd love to see justice dealt to the most heinous criminals, it is more important to prevent the crimes from happening in the first place. Prison currently doesn't help anyone become a better person but if we changed it to be rehabilitative and at least give prisoners the opportunity to do good work for society, it would help stop criminals from committing more crimes in the future. Plus, 1 out of 7 people given the death penalty are later found to be innocent of the crime they were given the death penalty for, and that's only the people we know about. Protecting innocents is far more important than petty justice, much as it hurts me, someone who had a best friend murdered, to say.
And a final point, the best justice may not always be an "eye for an eye". Making someone who previously justified murder no longer capable of justifying murder in their head anymore will make them go crazy trying to undo their mistakes. Have these people speak to kids at school, tell them about much it fucking sucks to be a murderer. If you just kill them, you are letting them off without truly having them feel bad about any of their mistakes.
I agree with you I do have one question if anyone had killed your granddaughter will you still fill the same I myself can't find it in me to agree with the death penalty as long as there possibility of parole
She sounds like a person who cares about all people to me, not just her pen. When you care about all people you don't think this way. You don't chsnge your values depending on who the victim is.
@@sarastewart4379 but care for the ones who died by killers they should be killed
@@Shakirbindahir1998 not taking revenge is not caring for the victims. Not killing perpetrators of crimebdoes not absolve them of consequences. An eye for an eye is very unenlightened thinking which thankfully most people have evolved from.
@@sarastewart4379 then what should we do to the killers?
@Matthew Hysler that's ok. I realise that beliefs like yours come from a place of lack of understanding on the subject and really come from a place of ego, nothing more. No offence intended. However, I must add that one of the main reasons the death penalty is wrong is that there are too many innocent people wrongly convicted for anyone to never execute someone who has not committed the crime. It could even happen to you.
How to execute a person whom society desired, of whom she participated in the existence, the birth, and above all the education, and whom she confronted with the fait accompli of existing without her consent? When we don't know how to fabricate a person or how to educate him/her, and the world in which we insert her/him is a jungle, why put him/her in this world and then blame her/him for his/her actions? May those who did not know how to educate this person, that they punish themselves or reform themselves!
The death penalty not only punishes the convict, it also punishes his family, friends, and the sensitive-minded members of the court system. I could add more but it would take up too much space.
If someone makes the choice to kill someone, then he is responsible for his actions as well as the consequences. The jurors did not make that decision--the monster did, therefore the jurors should not feel like this woman. Why feel sorry for the monster? Feel sorrow for their victims.
Instead of making it about the death penalty, she lingers on about the trauma for a juror. It's the executed ones we really should care about...
Because she can only speak to her experience, not someone else's.
She heavily implied, but never explicitly stated that she was against the death penalty, just advocated that those who are called upon as jurors should be aware of their convictions and the consequences of their actions before deliberating.
Shame he didn't feel the same way about his victim as you did for him. ¬_¬
Think about it this way, what's the alternative? Force tax-payers to pay for his room and board for decades? 😒
Great, thank you! ⭐
Margaritas are great therapy.
They are actually the worst coping mechanism to have. Because you train yourself that alcohol will solve your problems which is exactly the opposite.
Quite honestly, I agree with her on many levels. The death penalty may be the end of everything, but it has these negative social feedbacks, that only escalates the mind of young souls to think in that direction. Take a moment to ponder on this. Children who aren't even in high school yet speak of killing and taking life with absolutely no mental hindrance. Of course, some actions are abhorrent enough to demand such gruesome end, however, incarceration FOR LIFE may also be an alternative way to punish the wrongdoers...
Maybe one day we can put criminals like that, in a virtual prison that feels like a lifetime or maybe 10. But in reality is only a few minutes.
Or maybe even test to see if they would do it again, after they did their time.
call it virtual parole...
I fail to see how that would work.
@Miles Coverdale I'm not a spiritual person. But if i was i would say... All of our spirits come from the same place none good or bad. it all boils down to the temptation and suffering of the World we live in.
Some pour souls are simply exposed to more then others.
Whats the saying? Lifes not fair, or To walk a mile in someones else's shoes.
Black Mirror - White Bear episode
SO RELEVANT.
We live in a society that has laws. Members of that society agreed to live by those laws or suffer the consequences. If one commits a heinous act of murdering another member of that society, the consequence is that person is removed from society…completely. And jurors are not murderers They are simply the means of helping to determine if the prosecution has laid out the case to convict a person.
Jury nullification.
honestly putting someone to sleep is way more humane than keeping them in a tiny little cage like a veal animal for the rest of their life
The best comment so far...
Take these common joes out of the judicial system, stop the jury system. Decisions should be taken by professional people
"...he spent endless days in his cell, no sunlight, so his eyes were as black as his hair and his mustache. He was very intimidating and there was absolutely no doubt in his guilt. But regardless of his guilt, as the days passed, I began to see this monster as a human being".
Gabriella Patricola as if your eye color relies on the lighting
@Miles Coverdale human beings who do terrible things are still human beings, they're not monsters devoid of conscience, they have their own thoughts that lead them down their own path, but instead of getting rid of the problem by killing the person wouldn't it be wiser and more just to heal them before they commit any crime and/or actually punish them after.
A quote by Cornel West (sociologist, author of Race Matters): "Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public."
Watch on +1,25 speed
as far as i'm concerned... criminals know of the consequences of their actions... trials are done to see if the public sees any kind of remorse or ability to be re-abilitated... so their victims families and such can move on... you did not decide to murder them, they do that when they commit the crimes that earned them the penalty..... so you can say you think its wrong all ya want...but i want the death penalty to be expanded... to include any crime that the criminal would spend life in prison...being that the human life expectancy can be assumed... at a medium rate...(last time i looked 80 for men and 88 for women) because prisons loose their power. you see prison is meant to reabilitate... its meant to influence who they are to be better than they where,,,, so they can rejoin the civilian population ...but if they never get out...than the prison term is a joke... they may change ... but they'll never outlive the penance for their crimes.
i also think the appeal system thou nice is also more of a joke. you see in the old days... when a criminal was sentenced to death, they would hang or shoot them within hours or days of the end of the trial... to spend 20-30 years waiting for the penalty to be served.... its a f****ng joke.... the money we spend on imprisoning them could be refunneled into real efforts of rabilitiation instead of the holding cells we currently have... at the same time, if an appeal and a trial do happen to exonerate them ... then the state would grant the family a monetary settlement, based on the loss of income that individual would have made... idk the duration of time implicated for the award thou... i would also like to hold lawyers/ prosecuters accountable for when an appeal does prove innocents... especilly if it turns out they withheld information or manipulated the system to win the case... eh ...i could go on for days...peace.
Regardless, counseling for the jurors is a good idea. The idea is bipartisan, post-partisan, really - people who do their civic duty and put a man to death should get some help dealing with that, if they need it.
Jury duty is thee most annoying and sometimes inconvenient thing I have ever had to do.
1.Those days of work are not covered so I lose money.
2.My parking is not covered so then I have to pay to lose money.
3.The important things like buying groceries or getting laundry done or getting things in on time are now disrupted.
4.I wouldn't call her a survivor of anything. She was asked if she could validate implementing it and it's not like she said no. I do understand providing counseling for those who end up with these feelings.
For school debate I was for the death penalty, and for my defense I suggested that if we're going to be as bold as to take a life we should also think about things like how much time and energy is wasted be sentencing life in prison. I'd much rather those people be able to volunteer themselves into doing things like medical testing (Cutting back on animal testing) or public janitorial services like cleaning up thier local cities, handaling recycling and living out thier lives by giving back. Utalize them in a way that benifits the society a jury has decided they are not safe to be around. This is all with thier consent to it being a priority of course but being copped up in a cell seems less appealing then picking up trash or learning how to properly recycle 🤷🏾♀️ijs
If I had my way, I would turn jails into places to get re educated and learn new skills to get you back in the work force, and you get 2 strikes, 2nd strike and your out meaning death penalty. But these strikes will not be for trivial crimes of course.
The problem with "strikes" is that there is no objectivity. There are people who killed for a good reason, which still is morally wrong. There are people who kill once but in a way which makes clear that society has to be protected from them. Also either of the strikes could still be a flawed conviction. There is no good way of applying a binary principle on an analogue reality, no matter how many incrementations one goes through.
How did all jurors vote on the death penalty at the ballot box originally and was this question asked during selection? Yes, everyone is blameworthy who voted this way for the death penalty and religion is once again distorting reality.
While this is a great presentation this is an inappropriate Ted talk. It’s a completely emotional argument presented with an intense bias for one side. What if she started this by saying the man r*ped and m*rdered two girls and a wife in front of a husband and left the husband alive to suffer. What if this same person was not just remorseless but antagonizing during the trial. Would that make you feel differently if those facts were presented during this talk? What if they were a domestic terrorist who killed 15 people? Emotional arguments are dangerous because they by their nature chip away at our ability to rationally look at a situation.
Those granddaughters are America's hope 😉
I'm surprised any conservative Christian could support the death penalty, based on Jesus refusing to execute the woman caught in adultery.
It's tree trunks
no we just need better non snowflake juror's if you cant hack it then dont do it. opt out say your racist say whatever just dont do it.if someone cant do a job they dont change the job. they get someone that can.
But do the victims feel happy with the outcome? They are the real people that this should be about, not the people on the jury, its not about feelings.
It's completely about feelings. You said, "do the victims *feel* happy with the outcome?" You're contradicting yourself. Also, the mental health of these people on the jury is important. They should not be burdened with an inhumane decision like that.
There is an organazation called murder victims for human rights which is an organization against the death penalty made up of murder victims.
@@ramyar2000 I've seen so many times people who support the DP contradict themselves. In the same sentence they say anyone who kills forfeited their life, while saying kill more people. It's scary that these people are like this and they shouldn't be taking seriously.
People should go through a mental test to see if they are capable of giving death penalty to someone who’s guilty. Other wise people could go free because people are to scared to find them guilt or even suffer like this women has.
This is why everyone should Google jury nullification
Is it possible that the use of the popular jury in trials is related to the issuance of sentences of death penalty?
Yepp im still waiting for Ted to talk tho
Eloquent speaker.
Yeah, yeah, lovely story, go write a book or better, don't ever be a juror. No man is allowed to take another one's life, period. And if you do pardon a killer that had all the evidences for his guilt and death penalty sentence, and he kills again, aren't you indirectly responsible for the death of a victim? Yeah, you do.
or they could be sent to prison rather than killed...
Sounds to me like accessory to murder (yeah, I know. I'm reaching/joking somewhat.)
@@franticranter prison? You do know they kill each other pretty often there too, and not if it's like a bad thing but, some people are there for other reasons than killing and I don't think it s fair. But the problem is that they get out, and how many cases of people getting out of prison that kill again are? You d be amazed.
Funny how she has turned the story out to be " All about herself ! "
Reason some individuals should never be allowed on Juries or hold political office …. Reasoning , Logic , and Critical Thinking Skills are replace with " Feeling " and Emotional Incapability of making a rational , educated decision concerning subjects !
Same type of individuals that are easily Manipulated and have NO MORAL Basis in life that is anchored in their belief system !
Which ever the wind is blowing , is her Moral Compass for the day ?
th-cam.com/video/CyBcHUe4WeQ/w-d-xo.html
@@franticranter you do know that our prisons are overcrowded in a lot of states because those states don't believe in the death penalty for heinous, evil crimes? Just life sentences. At least, that's as far as I know.
You were a victim too, and a true Christian as opposed to all those hypocrites in our government. Some years after, unfortunately, your experience, a CONSERVATIVE midwestern governor banned the death penalty after DNA evidence cleared MANY of the accused of their crimes. I feel bad for you, but admire your good heart, openness to rethinking, and LIVING your faith.
Woah. Really changed my view on this topic.
Did you try and reach out and become friends with the victims family’s? Oh, of course not..Do you think maybe they are suffering from a form of PTSD?? Too bad the victims can’t stop by for margarita anymore ( crowd laughs)..poor you! Appeasing your guilt by asking forgiveness from a POS who stabbed 2 women 46 times.... This is a sticking display being thrown in the faces of 2 innocent victims and their family’s...
Is there a Ted talks segment in favor of DP? Victims families perspective? Ted talks are very big on showing two sides of issue, aren't they?
Would Lindy Lou Isonhood have ultimately reacted the same way if the convict had been black?
Honestly this sounds kinda selfish. You're going to be against the death penalty because you can't handle making the decision of sentencing a dangerous murderer to death? If that guy killed her son and raped then murdered her granddaughter I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have this dilemma.
I think rapers of any kind, regular rapers or pedophiles should be put to death when proved guilty. Not sure about murderers tho, this nice speech opens a debate for me but didn't put me in any direction in particular.
What about retroactive rapists?
Wine aunt cat lady tells how death penalty = bad
Death penalty is unethical
so is murder. Unethical for Unethical hence eye for an eye.
@@MindlessTube Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
"We can't sentence murderers to death because feelings." Let's see how long your feelings last when you have to personally pay for their life in prison by raising your taxes if you voted for ending the death penalty. Of course she doesn't even mention jury nullification, wouldn't want the masses to get any ideas in other cases like non-violent drug users and dealers.
I'm .....🙏
Accused shouldn't have been executed,because it took 22 years for implementation..if the jury had such traumatic time,just imagine what the accused would have gone through waiting for his Death penalty.
In French PLEASE !!!!!!
.
You had the responsibility to say what you really think. Instead, you go with the others even though you didn't want too. And then you say the system is broken in the next breath. I think you are not qualified to be in the position you are in. You put yourself through trauma you didn't have the stomach to manage. People need to realise that if your not comfortable you shouldn't put yourself through it. I do agree with counselling for the jurors. And I know that responsibilities require action. But they also require a steady mind when it comes to life and death. It's not something everyone can do. People need to be tested for this kind of thing. If you lose your cool during a real-life situation your no use to anyone. You can even be more detrimental. The talking shouldn't be after you lost your nerve. It should be pre, during and post everything that can be traumatic.
Saying people should never make the wrong decision or have regrets is very simplistic.
@@sarastewart4379 I didn't mean for it to sound like that and you have my apologies. I was thinking more alone the lines of "we need to be educated and have gone through a lot of mock situations so you don't have to freak out due to not knowing how to feel or how to react to something in a job" hope this helps explain a little better
#ted
Something's don't correspond
When you take life, you lose your human rights along with it.
So, you lied to yourself at first and then gave into your emotions and are now trying to convince yourself that the death penalty is cruel and wrong? Umm... no. If someone murders another in cold blood, they deserve to die. That's just the facts of life.
Also, you said that the judicial system is broken, but you also said that the guy was guilty of murder. Seems to me like the system worked just fine.
Oh, and giving fair justice to the fallen does not make you a murderer--- it makes you a hero.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
You get what you give. If you murder someone, you're no use to society.
opinions as facts, you surely sound like a fine armchair philosopher
@@zalbortroxzalbortox1565 nice hyperbole. You failed to catch that all the evidence in the case showed he was guilty of murdering someone with a knife. In this case, he deserved the penalty he got.
joseph stearman think the problem is makeing people vote on death penalty who arnt mentality capable to do it. They should do a test on jury to see if there capable of it. Coz some people go free when they shouldn’t because of this.
The reasons against the death penalty are numerous. The system of jury trial is a sound one, and in my opinion, the best possible system. I was a British barrister for 32 years and conducted hundreds of jury trials over that time, I believe in the jury system, but jury trial is fallible, like all human endeavors. One needs to consider the skill and experience of the advocate. I have seen TV documentaries from the US where very inexperienced public defenders were given serious cases to defend against experienced district attorneys, that is unbalanced and wholly unfair. The defendants usually being poor people from minority groups. We have to deal with biased judges, judges are people and do a fantastic job (in my opinion), but they are fallible and capable of showing human emotion. Sometimes it can cloud their otherwise objective judgement. A lack of full evidential disclosure, a lack of disclosure of unused material, occurs in many cases and is fatal to a fair trial. All these factors can affect the outcome of a jury trial and render a conviction unsafe or suspect.
Generally, courts of appeal should be slow to overturn a conviction unless there are compelling reasons. If the appeal court routinely allows appeals, especially on facts found by the jury, it is replacing the jury’s verdict and conclusions with their own. That is dangerous. It is important, therefore, to ensure a full disclosure of all evidence, and a fair trial on that evidence,. So, we must approach the whole exercise of fact finding and verdict with caution, the trial itself needs to be flawless and beyond reproach. Sadly, that is not always the case, especially with notorious crimes.
Executing an innocent man is as bad as the original crime. The death penalty, if promptly implemented, removes appeals. Delayed implementation of a death sentence removes the punishment from the crime and so diminishes the purpose and impact of the penalty, it renders it meaningless. Delaying a sentence is also a harsh additional punishment to the defendant. The punishment is death, not a lifetime incarcerated with uncertainty and the degradation of prison life to be then executed in old age! A prisoner is entitled to know his fate, not exist in the void of death row. But most importantly imprisonment for life, removing a person from the normal congregation of human society, achieves the same result. If there are objections raised by possible parole then the parole system needs to be reformed. The use of a jury and judge with a parole panel might be one solution. However, the real rational for the death penalty is deterrence and societal retribution.
Revenge has no place in a civilized, rational system of criminal justice. Revenge is the act of a family member or friend, not the act of the state. Revenge leads to vendetta and the total breakdown of civil society, that’s why we have a system of state sponsored rational, objective justice that allows the state to punish the citizen for wrongdoing. Revenge is the unthinking act of an angry mob or relative.
When speaking of the death penalty people must remain objective and not sink into the morass of emotionally charged rhetoric. People need to ask what is the purpose of the penalty, does the penalty achieve its objectives, are there alternative ways of achieving the same result? As I state above the main reasons for the death penalty are to deter others and to show society’s disgust at the act of murder, society demands retribution. All of these objectives can be achieved with a sentence of life imprisonment. The death penalty may satisfy certain members of society and give them retribution, but there is no objective evidence to show the death penalty acts as a deterrence to murder. On the contrary, the vast majority of murders are committed within the family or by people known to the victim. Random murder, or the targeting of a vulnerable member of society, like a child, by predators is, thankfully, rare. In my humble opinion, the case for the death penalty is not made out. We abolished it in England in 1965 and it was removed from the statute books for murder in 1968. Since then the death penalty has been removed for all of the remaining crimes, including arson of Her Majesty’s dockyards! This is an emotive issue with people passionate on both sides. The discussion will continue. I will say this, if you intend to continue executing people in America you need to find a much more efficient and uniform method of doing so. Lethal injection is a ridiculous method and very often botched. Hanging, properly done, is by far the best method. I don’t know why you ever moved away from this tried and tested method.
We need more heroines, thank you for your courage !
I like ur vids
Countries that have rescinded the death penalty = UK, Canada, Germany, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands...countries that still have it = North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, US....what a great group you are part of...
More men please
Im sorry but you are seeing it wrong, the law gave it death penalty, you just gave guilty confirmation, I understand your stress and drama but I do not understand your sense of guilt for death penalty
Sooo, killing some one should cost you what?,, 4,5 years of free food and shelter?
All u have to do is take some actong lessons
Yes because locking them up for 70 years in a prison paid for by us is a good idea? Okieeee
R U kidding?
I hate it when people monetize life. How would you feel if it was your mum or your dad or someone else you were close to? Would you want them put to death or would you want them in prison for 70yrs at whatever cost so you can still see them? You might say well my parents wouldn't do that but that's besides the point, either someone is someone's son/daughter or someone is someone's mother/father and they may not have thought they'd find themselves in that situation either. If society believes in the preservation of life then it should preserve life.
@@VoodooDuck nope, i more have a problem with us locking people in cages for decades. Being put in dangerous environments where they're statistically way more likely to be murdered or raped or what have you than they would out of prison. And on the lesser side, yea i dont wanna pay for that. The prison system sucks.
Thats a bad idea too.
More expensive to execute.
If the death penalty is part of the culture in Mississippi and everyone knows that murder will result in the death penalty, then the murderer should have expected this before he decided to kill someone. Sorry, but this lady is delusional.
You don't get the point of this video, laws can be changed, the guy was obviously guilty but that doesn't mean a death sentence is the right thing to do. Calling someone delusional because they empathise with people is honestly concerning.
@Karraq It doesn’t matter if the death penalty is the right thing. The point is, that’s the punishment for committing murder. This guy knew that this was the consequence of his action, or maybe he didn’t. If he didn’t, then that’s his fault since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse. He should have taken the punishment for murder into consideration before he decided to murder someone. This lady is delusional because almost no focus was on the actual victim of the crime, she victimized the murderer instead.
@@matsitt i understand your point. You are thinking from the victims perspective. For once try to think from a murderer perspective. Think that you have intentionally killed a human. Remember you are that person who is a murderer. Would you say that you deserve death penalty for what you did???
If put myself in that situation I say No i don't deserve death penalty. So wbu?
You couldn’t deliver “without reservation” a penalty of death. You should have replied “no” to the question but you were dishonest and your answer has tormented you ever since but that doesn’t mean the system should be changed.
Sounds like She believed she could. It happens. We surprise ourselves.
She thinks like that because she is not the victim's mother, father, sister. What a bunch of crap.
There is actually an orginization called murder victims for human rights yknow plus have you ever sentenced somone to death?
What crap is this?????
Wtf was the whole point????
We have a societal duty to carry out such a decision. It's not normal to dwell in whether or not it's right and it's not normal to get together with others to decide whether or not someone's going to die but as a society we've decided to willingly pay taxes (agency or not), hold communities, town hall meetings, hire sheriff's, firefighters, we have something for its individual purposes. If someone is a threat to life they're to be killed because letting them live is a huge concern to the lives of the free as well as other prisoners. Rapists and murderers shouldn't be any exception.
Everyone today is far too coddled by society due to its unnatural level of safety by providing security from natural predators of the wild, healthcare, and food whenever we need it. These things blind us to facts that violence and death are normal parts of life.
If you're telling the court "yes" to being able to carry out a death sentence only to later regret it, YOU do not know yourself nor did you have any business making a life n death choice over someone else's life. That's immature and irresponsible.