March 06, 2005

The power of one

One lone juror has spared the life of an Idaho murderer. Sometimes "arbitrary and capricious" kicks in from the outset of the process, in the luck of the draw of the jury panel you get.

Jason McDermott won't get the death penalty for the execution-style killing of 18-year-old Zachariah Street on May 2, 2003. Eleven of 12 jurors agreed Saturday that McDermott's crime carried at least one of the three aggravating factors needed for a death sentence. But the jury must unanimously agree to sentence someone to death, so now a judge must decide on a lesser sentence.


My former colleague Ed Odessey told the jury, "Bring that mercy that you have for people — for damaged people — to bear here." He reached one person.

"It was a little puzzling," the victim's mother said. "But either way you look at it, the guy's not going to have a nice life." Elsewhere, she's quoted as saying, "[There was] one juror that wasn't being honest with the prosecutor's office and herself. She had her doubts, and she should not even have been on the jury."

I won't come down on a victim's mother for saying so, but she's voiced the presumption behind death-qualifying juries: individuals who will vote for life are dishonest, and people who have their doubts about death shouldn't be on capital juries. Take the same facts, same trial, and change nothing from murder to verdict save one individual on the jury, and Jason McDermott would have been killed rather than spared. Arbitrary. Capricious. I think I've said it before: some people may deserve to die for what they've done, but no earth-bound system is fit to decide who that should be.

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Arbitary and capricious>>> yes as an observer you may be able to say that... When jurys make their verdicts based on emotion, the law is not honorable...
"They that can give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Ben Franklin....

Anonymous said...

I was the juror, what you all presume is I was dishonest. In fact I was the most honest and unemotional juror on the panel. People that go into a trial already having made the decision to put someone to death are the dishonest people as they do not listen to any facts put forth in the trial as they have already made up their small minds. I continue to believe in the death sentence when it is warranted. If the prosecutor would have made his case re aggravating factors the verdict may have been different. Prosecutors blame yourselves not the jurors when your case is not made. Prosecutors also make sure you are using the death penalty for appropriate crimes not your own agenda like the prosecutor in this case was trying to do.

Anonymous said...

Arbitrary: determined by impulse rather than reason; heavy-handed; chosen for no reason, somewhat random; outcome usually technically logical
Capricious:
Impulsive and unpredictable; determined by chance, impulse, or whim; as, a capricious winterstorm, stringent rulers often act capriciously.

What is so funny for you lawyers is te decision was predictable, not determined by chance and very very well thought out following the rules given to me by the courts. It was time lined, very rational and logical arguement. Too bad 11 other jurors decisions were ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS!!!!!!!

Skelly said...

I can tell that you're not familiar with this blog or me. Please don't misunderstand me: I thought that it was an honorable thing that you did. You saved a life. I can't imagine what strength of character you showed in jury deliberations. To me, what was arbitrary was the whole death penalty process: if you hadn't been on that jury, that man would likely have been put to death.

Anonymous said...

thank you for your comments. My father was an attorney and often said the law is reason without emotion. When 11 people tell you the voted for the death penalty
"because I dont want him to get out and live next to me in 20 yrs" is ridiculous. Anyway I greatly appreciate your comments.
Thank you