One woman is receiving threats and has to have security because she refused to cave in. She was the only one who stuck to her “no” vote on whether to execute Jodi Arias. It wasn’t a religious decision or that she was opposed to the death penalty. We have to believe her on that; lawyers put prospective jurors through rigorous questioning to disqualify such people. Rather, there was something nagging at her conscience, making her unsure that death was appropriate in this case.
And she wasn’t the only one. Four members of the original jury also refused to vote for death for Arias. And those jurors heard the entire case, not an abridged version of it, as this last jury did.
Putting a human being to death is a very serious decision to make. That’s why it must be unanimous. And why we must respect the people who have enough doubt to vote against it.
What would have happened if the original four and this one woman had been replaced with others? Would they have interpreted facts differently? Would they have felt that doubt but, nonetheless, been influenced to vote with the majority? Would that have been any more just than the real outcome?
There are too many uncontrollable factors going into jury selection, and a judge alone should not make the determination. This, in itself, should be reason enough to eliminate the death penalty in America.
In reading this I understand better why the death penalty is wrong. Ever see the movie “Twelve Angry Men”?
Yes. That was eye-opening. Death is so permanent. When the State/jury system makes a mistake, it does no good to the executed person later on to say, “Ooops….sorry.” And his innocent family suffers forever. Most industrialized nations have abandoned it. Meanwhile, look at Texas. They execute people so often that they’ve run out of the chemicals to do any more for awhile!