• Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    My personal tinfoil hat is that they are seeking the death penalty so he accepts a deal. They are scared of jury nullification.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That’s normal though. I mean it shouldn’t be, but they always go as hard as they can hoping you’ll plead guilty to avoid a trial. When they say the death penalty is meant to dissuade criminals, they know it doesn’t work on crimes. It works on getting guilty pleas.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That isn’t tinfoil-hat at all. I was reading a news story recently about how worried they are that they’ll have trouble finding impartial jurors, since there’s so much sympathy for him.

      • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        How exactly does this work? How do they determine someone to be impartial? If they weed out people for having sympathy but keep people who don’t, aren’t they making that jury partial to finding him guilty?

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          The jury is supposed to be unbiased, i.e. not favoring one side or the other. Obviously, it’s impossible to get a jury that’s completely impartial, especially in a case that’s as high-profile as this one, but they have to try.

          They ask the jurors questions and then each side has the opportunity to remove ones that they deem problematic.