|
|
|
|
Apr 1st, 2003, 12:17 AM
b/c the purpose of the jury is to have laymen decide the proper punishment based on a sampling of community views. When you exclude certain views, you aren't punishing based on community standards anymore but upon those that share a common belief. That's like saying: "it's okay for you to vote, as long as you vote republican".
One of the bases of the 8th amendment is common evolving decency, but the Sup. Ct. has upheld the exclusion of jurors during voire dire based on their opposition to the death penalty.
So, is it constitutional to have jury of his/her peers, or is it constitutional to have a jury of specific peers who believe certain things?
| |
| |
|
|
Threaded Mode
