snip~
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Florida's death penalty law unconstitutional because it requires the trial judge and not the jury to make the critical findings necessary to impose capital punishment.

That's at odds with a string of Supreme Court cases which held that facts that add to a defendant's punishment — known as aggravating circumstances — must be found by a jury.

"The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury's mere recommendation is not enough," wrote Sonia Sotomayor for the court's 8-1 majority.


more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-strikes-down-florida-death-penalty-law-n494691

The 6th Amendment say no such thing!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Back in the day, the jury only decided guilt or innocence. The judge would then pass sentence, usually based on established guidelines. Then, as more and more Liberal judges realized that the sentences they passed out were giving away their bias, they started to move the sentencing to the Jury.

Given the rampant corruption and racism involved with the criminal justice system in the U.S., I'm not a big fan of the Death Penalty.

Before you start the name calling (Bleeding heart Liberal, etc, etc, etc...) consider the following:

Timothy McVeigh: Killed 168 people in the OKC bombing. Convicted 1997. Executed 2001.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: Mastermind of 9/11 attacks which killed thousands! Captured: 2003, still hasn't even stood trial.

Quote from: Voldemort on January 12, 2016, 10:00:34 AM
The 6th Amendment say no such thing!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Back in the day, the jury only decided guilt or innocence. The judge would then pass sentence, usually based on established guidelines. Then, as more and more Liberal judges realized that the sentences they passed out were giving away their bias, they started to move the sentencing to the Jury.

Given the rampant corruption and racism involved with the criminal justice system in the U.S., I'm not a big fan of the Death Penalty.

Before you start the name calling (Bleeding heart Liberal, etc, etc, etc...) consider the following:

Timothy McVeigh: Killed 168 people in the OKC bombing. Convicted 1997. Executed 2001.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: Mastermind of 9/11 attacks which killed thousands! Captured: 2003, still hasn't even stood trial.

Depends on whether one considers sentencing as part of the trial process or separate from the trial process.  If sentencing is part of the trial process, (IMO, it is part) then "...speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..." would indicate that the jury should also be involved with sentencing.

Considering the manner so many justices ignore law in favor of their federal authority expanding agenda - such as declaring two men who accidentally allowed a burn off to affect federal lands as terrorists - I would propose the conclusion that sentencing by a jury would be, for the most part, more just.

I used to be absolutely in favor of the death penalty as the punishment for certain crimes.

Such as pre-meditated murder, or Treason for example. But in recent years, after hearing story after story come out where the police lied, fabricated evidence, planted evidence, and or broke other various laws, just to "get their man" as it were,  I've sort of changed my stance on the death penalty.

There's been far too many cases recently that have come to light, where defendants did NOT get fair trials.

And when you're dealing with the state taking of someone's life, as punishment for a crime, it's not like you can later say, "oops our bad, we made a mistake, lets do over".

Add to that, the way we have 24-7 news coverage, of a case as we often times see today.

Where prosecutors and sheriff's and the popo, are there on the news day after day, week after week prior to the trial even starting, laying out their case to the public saying so and so is guilty, on the news for days weeks months before the trial.

And then expect to see  a fair and impartial jury come in, and issue a fair and unbiased ruling as required in our Constitution.

And then add to that, the way carrying out such sentences are hidden out of sight, and most of the time out of mind of the populace.

It's not a very good deterrent of future crime, I have to honestly say, I'd have to ask the judge to allow me to recuse myself as a juror from a death penalty case.

Because I would have to admit, I do have a bias against imposing that penalty anymore.

Quote from: daidalos on January 12, 2016, 03:10:27 PM
I used to be absolutely in favor of the death penalty as the punishment for certain crimes.

Such as pre-meditated murder, or Treason for example.
But in recent years, after hearing story after story come out
where the police lied, fabricated evidence, planted evidence,
and or broke other various laws, just to "get their man" as it were, 
I've sort of changed my stance on the death penalty.

There's been far too many cases recently that have come to light,
where defendants did NOT get fair trials.

And when you're dealing with the state taking of someone's life,
as punishment for a crime, it's not like you can later say,
"oops our bad, we made a mistake, lets do over".

Here's how that should be dealt with:

Deuteronomy 19:16-20
16  If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17  then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD,
      before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
18  The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness
      and he has accused his brother falsely,
19  then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.
      Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20  The rest will hear and be afraid,
      and will never again do such an evil thing among you.

We'll know that America has returned to God
when we start seeing corrupt police officers and prosecutors
being executed.

Quote from: je_freedom on January 12, 2016, 06:05:16 PM
We'll know that America has returned to God
when we start seeing corrupt police officers and prosecutors
being executed.

English clergyman and writer G.K. Chesterton summed it up nicely.

Quote from: daidalos on January 12, 2016, 03:10:27 PM
I used to be absolutely in favor of the death penalty as the punishment for certain crimes.

I am STILL in favor of the death penalty.

Have there been miscarriages of justice in the past?  Absolutely.

No justice is absolutely perfect.  There will be rare miscarriages of justice but that does not warranty throwing out the baby with the bath water.

IF the death penalty is NOT a deterrent to crime... it is because of the slowness to punish the criminal.  The endless cycle of appeals greatly weakens the effect of the punishment.  The Bible tells us this:

Ecc 8:11
Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.

Quote from: Voldemort on January 12, 2016, 10:00:34 AM
The 6th Amendment say no such thing!

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Back in the day, the jury only decided guilt or innocence. The judge would then pass sentence, usually based on established guidelines. Then, as more and more Liberal judges realized that the sentences they passed out were giving away their bias, they started to move the sentencing to the Jury.

Given the rampant corruption and racism involved with the criminal justice system in the U.S., I'm not a big fan of the Death Penalty.

Before you start the name calling (Bleeding heart Liberal, etc, etc, etc...) consider the following:

Timothy McVeigh: Killed 168 people in the OKC bombing. Convicted 1997. Executed 2001.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed: Mastermind of 9/11 attacks which killed thousands! Captured: 2003, still hasn't even stood trial.

Looks like Scalia agrees with you in part.