How long should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get behind bars?

[Admiral Yi]

Based on my extensive legal training gleaned from Law & Order reruns, it's SOP to ask prospective jurors if they have any problem awarding the death penalty.  I.e. opposing it on philosophical grounds disqualifies you.

[DGuller]

I found it strange that they could just decide to try him under federal laws, apparently mainly so they can even go for the death penalty in Massachusetts and then pick a jury that is obviously not representative of the state as they excluded all those that are opposed to the death penalty, which is probably a sizeable proportion. I guess all of that is perfectly legal under American law, but it feels a bit like deliberately picking a jury to get a certain result instead of using what I would assume is the standard procedure for murder trials in Massachusetts.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to pick jury on the basis of whether they're willing to engage in jury nullification, especially in jury systems where you need a 12-0 result to reach a decision.  Juries are supposed to decide on the basis of facts, not philosophical stances.

[lustindarkness]

I thought it was a federal trial because they crossed state lines?

[Admiral Yi]

I think the terrorism angle makes it a federal case.

[The Brain]

It's interstate commerce.

[The Minsky Moment]

I found it strange that they could just decide to try him under federal laws, apparently mainly so they can even go for the death penalty in Massachusetts and then pick a jury that is obviously not representative of the state as they excluded all those that are opposed to the death penalty, which is probably a sizeable proportion. I guess all of that is perfectly legal under American law, but it feels a bit like deliberately picking a jury to get a certain result instead of using what I would assume is the standard procedure for murder trials in Massachusetts.

I agree.
The figleaf justification is what Guller says below.
But the reality is that it biases the jury pool.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree.
The figleaf justification is what Guller says below.
But the reality is that it biases the jury pool.

Would you be in favor of including jurors who believer no crime merits punishment?

[Martinus]

I agree.
The figleaf justification is what Guller says below.
But the reality is that it biases the jury pool.

Would you be in favor of including jurors who believer no crime merits punishment?

Isn't the idea behind a jury that it somehow is representative of the society? If so if you are skewing this by excluding certain (statistically representative) groups of people (such as death penalty opponents) you end up perverting that idea.

[grumbler]

I agree.
The figleaf justification is what Guller says below.
But the reality is that it biases the jury pool.

Would you be in favor of including jurors who believer no crime merits punishment?

Isn't the idea behind a jury that it somehow is representative of the society? If so if you are skewing this by excluding certain (statistically representative) groups of people (such as death penalty opponents) you end up perverting that idea.

The requirement for unanimity makes a "representative" jury impossible.  All you can try to do is assemble a "reasonable" jury.  A person unwilling, for personal reasons, to vote for all of the various verdicts and penalties the jury is tasked to chose among isn't being "reasonable" for the purposes of jury service.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't the idea behind a jury that it somehow is representative of the society? If so if you are skewing this by excluding certain (statistically representative) groups of people (such as death penalty opponents) you end up perverting that idea.

I get that.  I'm pointing out a natural result of enforcing that logic.

(BTW, no definite article before society.  Just "society.")

[The Brain]

Mart's desire to have "burn the fags" type people on every jury is noted.

[MadImmortalMan]

If I wanted to nullify a jury, I'd lie about my opinions so they'd let me in, and then vote NG every time.

If I wanted to just get out of jury duty, I'd lie and say I have the exact opinions they don't want on the jury and they'd let me go.

[Eddie Teach]

If I wanted to nullify a jury, I'd lie about my opinions so they'd let me in, and then vote NG every time.

Not if the principle is more important to you than the verdict.

[Razgovory]

I never get picked for jury duty.

[The Minsky Moment]

Would you be in favor of including jurors who believer no crime merits punishment?

That doesn't present anywhere near the same problem.  There is a very substantial percentage of people who are anti-DP on same kind of principle, and thus systematically excluding those people from capital juries is likely to create a material bias.