LogFAQs > #928392773

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Jurors STRUGGLED to Convict AMBER GUYGER and considered a LIGHTER SENTENCE!!
EvenSpoonier 10/05/19 11:13:20 PM #33:	I don't fault the jury for struggling, at least in the abstract. I've been on a jury in a district where juries recommend sentences, and when the weight's on your shoulders, you're supposed to struggle. The power you are given as a juror, and the gravity of what you are asked to do with that power, are such that the decision should never be easy, per se, even if the question itself is relatively open-and-shut. You really do have to consider every perspective, giving each its fair weight, and it really is important to consider things like mercy and remorse. I also don't fault them for the "she'll be out in five" thing that others have mentioned. Juries are explicitly instructed not to concern themselves with what happens after sentencing. You're not even supposed to consider whether multiple sentences would be served concurrently or consecutively, though that's a moot point in this case. But the above all said, I do not think the jury did its job well. Mercy and remorse are not the only things to consider, and even when they are, you have to consider how and if they're shown. Guyger may indeed feel some degree of regret, but that never extended to accepting responsibility for her actions. The family may well have asked for a lighter sentence, but there are very good reasons that we don't have a process to make these requests binding. I am not necessarily saying the book should have been thrown at her -I haven't been following the case closely enough to make that call- but these things clearly factored far, far more heavily than they should have. As things stand, they gave her five years beyond the minimum: less than a quarter of the additional time (23 years beyond the minimum, for 28 years total) the prosecution requested. This is far too little. I could have seen it if they'd split the difference and gone with half the additional time (11.5 years beyond the minimum, for a total of 16.5 years); I still wouldn't really be happy with this, but the calculus is at least something I could understand. But where do they get off with giving her a paltry ten years total? There is being merciful, and there is giving a slap on the wrist. --- "Playing a game for its graphics is like watching pornography for the story." - Kadiroth <cite>EvenSpoonier posted [p:928392773] in Jurors STR... [t:78064053]...</cite> <quote>I don't fault the jury for struggling, at least in the abstract. I've been on a jury in a district where juries recommend sentences, and when the weight's on your shoulders, you're supposed to struggle. The power you are given as a juror, and the gravity of what you are asked to do with that power, are such that the decision should never be easy, per se, even if the question itself is relatively open-and-shut. You really do have to consider every perspective, giving each its fair weight, and it really is important to consider things like mercy and remorse. I also don't fault them for the "she'll be out in five" thing that others have mentioned. Juries are explicitly instructed not to concern themselves with what happens after sentencing. You're not even supposed to consider whether multiple sentences would be served concurrently or consecutively, though that's a moot point in this case. But the above all said, I do not think the jury did its job well. Mercy and remorse are not the only things to consider, and even when they are, you have to consider how and if they're shown. Guyger may indeed feel some degree of regret, but that never extended to accepting responsibility for her actions. The family may well have asked for a lighter sentence, but there are very good reasons that we don't have a process to make these requests binding. I am not necessarily saying the book should have been thrown at her -I haven't been following the case closely enough to make that call- but these things clearly factored far, far more heavily than they should have. As things stand, they gave her five years beyond the minimum: less than a quarter of the additional time (23 years beyond the minimum, for 28 years total) the prosecution requested. This is far too little. I could have seen it if they'd split the difference and gone with half the additional time (11.5 years beyond the minimum, for a total of 16.5 years); I still wouldn't really be happy with this, but the calculus is at least something I could understand. But where do they get off with giving her a paltry ten years total? There is being merciful, and there is giving a slap on the wrist. --- "Playing a game for its graphics is like watching pornography for the story." - Kadiroth</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1