|
|
Post by Charlene on Jun 18, 2005 7:07:16 GMT -6
I found this on the net - it is an example of the questionaire that a potential juror would be asked to fill out by a defense attorney during the process known as voir dire, the "getting to know you" phase of jury selection.
Death Penalty Voir Dire Questions
General Death Penalty Questions
1. Describe your views on the death penalty.
2. Have you ever held a different view on the death penalty? If you held a different view, what was it and why did it change?
3. How strongly do you believe in the death penalty?
4. Do you feel the death penalty is a deterrent to future crime by others? Why or why not?
5. What kind of crimes come to mind when you think of the death penalty?
6. Can you give me an example of one that you may have heard or read about in the media? What were your feelings about that crime?
7. What kinds of intentional, deliberate and premeditated murders do not deserve the death penalty?
8. Why do you have the feelings you do about the death penalty?
9. How do you feel about life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a sentence for an intentional, deliberate and premeditated murder?
10. How concerned are you about the amount of money that would be used to support a person in prison for the rest of his natural life?
11. Is there any doubt in your mind that life without the possibility of parole is just that?
12. What do you think the death penalty accomplishes for society?
13. Death as a punishment is obviously irrevocable. Occasionally one reads in the newspaper of one sentenced to death who was later found to be innocent. What does this make you think about the death penalty?
14. What can we do if we carry out a death sentence then find out that the person was innocent?
15. What is the best argument against the death penalty?
16. What is the best argument against life without the possibility of parole?
17. What is the best argument in favor of life without the possibility of parole?
18. What is the best argument in favor of the death penalty?
19. What would be important to you in making the decision of whether a person should receive the punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole or death?
20. What are your feelings or opinions about the federal government seeking the death penalty in a case in which the Defendant was not present when people were killed?
21. Prior to your filling out the juror questionnaire, have you ever expressed your views on the death penalty to family, friends, neighbors, or co-workers? What did you say and to whom?
22. How many times have you thought about the death penalty?
23. In your entire life prior to the juror questionnaire, how much time have you spent talking or thinking about the death penalty?
24. If an evil person commits a horrendous crime, is the death penalty appropriate? Why do you feel this way?
25. If a good person commits a horrendous crime, is the death penalty appropriate? Why do you feel this way?
26. What if a person with a vastly different opinion or point of view from yours commits such an act, is the death penalty appropriate? Why do you feel this way?
27. Give me an example of when you would vote for the Death Penalty for a person convicted of an intentional and deliberate murder?
28. Give me an example of when you would vote for a Life sentence for a person convicted of an intentional and deliberate murder?
29. Have you ever signed a petition that encouraged or supported the death penalty? Please tell us about that.
30. Have you ever publicly expressed your views favoring the death penalty? What view did you express?
31. Have you ever held a different view on the death penalty? If YES, what was your view and why did you change it?
32. What factors would be important to you in deciding if a person, who was guilty of an intentional and deliberate murder, should receive a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty?
33. Have you ever held a different view on the death penalty?
34. In your opinion, what kinds of crimes (what are some examples) would warrant the death penalty?
35. What factors would be important to you in determining whether a person who was guilty of an intentional and deliberate murder deserves the death penalty?
36. What kinds of crimes come to mind when you think of the death penalty?
37. Example of when you would vote for DP for a person convicted of internal murder.
38. Example of when you would vote for life.
39. Would you have difficulty voting for a life sentence if you convicted a person of an intentional and deliberate murder of innocent people?
40. If a person was found guilty of a heinous murder, would you, in that situation, always vote for the death penalty?
41. What factors would be important to you in deciding if a person should receive a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty?
42. Have you ever held a different view on the death penalty?
43. In your opinion what kinds of crimes (what are some examples) would warrant the death penalty?
44. Imagine a situation where you found a person guilty of an intentional and premeditated murder, in that situation, would you always vote for the death penalty?
45. In what kind of situation could you consider life in prison for a person you found guilty of an intentional and deliberate murder?
46. If you found a person guilty of intentionally murdering many people, would you always vote for the death penalty?
47. Can you think of an example of a situation where a person commits an intentional and deliberate murder, yet you would consider life in prison as the appropriate punishment.
48. If you believed a person was clearly guilty of a horrendous murder of many people, would you always vote for the death penalty?
49. If you found a person guilty of an intentional and premeditated murder, would you feel the death penalty is the only appropriate sentence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jun 18, 2005 14:19:53 GMT -6
18. What is the best argument in favor of the death penalty? It increases the chance that a lawyer might be killed. That such a questionnaire exists is an affront to justice. The whole point of voir dire is to keep individual citizens as far from the levers of power as poddible. |
|
Guru
Regular
Up there Cazaly
Posts: 333
|
Post by Guru on Jun 20, 2005 0:02:19 GMT -6
18. What is the best argument in favor of the death penalty? It increases the chance that a lawyer might be killed. That such a questionnaire exists is an affront to justice. The whole point of voir dire is to keep individual citizens as far from the levers of power as poddible. Charlene/Donnie, This is a very interesting article. I am continually amazed at jury selection in the US. It's a booming industry that's for sure. Donnie is right the voir dire should have nothing to do with the jury & in Australia the jury is excused when it's being carried out. Mind you the system is different as the voir dire is only used to determine what evidence will be admissable as determined by the judge & has nothing to do with jury selection. I'm amazed that such a survey can be made available. Certainly limits the "random cross section of society" that the jury system is supposed to invoke. Guru. P.S. & I'm amazed the DP gets delved out at all judging by this. |
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jun 20, 2005 7:24:00 GMT -6
I am continually amazed at jury selection in the US. It's a booming industry that's for sure. Truer words were never spoken. Jury consultants, focus groups, etc. Just part of the transparency in our legal system when it comes to jury selection in usually high profile cases. Having been a criminal trial juror (selected once out of three summonses), and voir dired, I understand the necessity for such a procedure. To have the death penalty as an option in a trial, a juror must be able to sentence someone to death ("death qualified"). From my own experience with a non-DP trial, just a run-of-the-mill attempted murder one, there are potential jurors who make claims that they can never, never mind you, judge someone else. With a juror like that on a jury, our legal system would grind to a halt. There are also those, and they are similar to some anti's on this board, who could only convict if they were 100% certain that guilt was shown; they have no concept of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Some jurors cannot make logical inferences; no way should they be on a jury. The ADA in the case I was on used, during voir dire, the following example: "You get on the subway in the morning and there is sunshine. During your 45 minute ride to work underground, other passengers board with wet raincoats and folded umbrellas dripping with water. Though you have not seen it raining, can you make the inference that it is raining outside?" Those who cannot make that inference do not have a logical enough mind to sit on a jury. Hardly any case is as tv portrays them, and many do not have neat and tidy confessions to soothe a juror's conscience. I must admit that if a potential juror lies during voir dire, gets on a jury, then is obstinate in the deliberation process and will not listen to reason enunciated by other jurors, then that juror should be charged with perjury, a criminal offense. To get on a jury to circumvent the legal process, or to make money later after a high profile case, is obstructionism. The whole system suffers from the deliberate and obdurate actions of these types. It also sickens me when jurors hang out with the defendent after an acquittal, as recently happened in the Whacko Jacko case where a juror went to the post verdict party at Neverland with their child. |
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jun 20, 2005 10:40:46 GMT -6
it's kind of long but, you should make filling it out as part of the registration/member profile for this board.
then see who stands by their responses and who doesn't.
might be interesting reading
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Jun 20, 2005 10:56:33 GMT -6
it's kind of long but, you should make filling it out as part of the registration/member profile for this board. then see who stands by their responses and who doesn't. might be interesting reading you know it would make for an interesting section on a user's profile. voluntary, of course. That would give each user the chance to fully explore and state their stance on the DP for all to read. |
|
Goldblum
Regular
Pro in Theory
Posts: 271
|
Post by Goldblum on Jun 20, 2005 22:07:16 GMT -6
I think they should have asked some more questions about the death penalty.
|
|
Guru
Regular
Up there Cazaly
Posts: 333
|
Post by Guru on Jun 21, 2005 23:27:45 GMT -6
I am continually amazed at jury selection in the US. It's a booming industry that's for sure. Truer words were never spoken. Jury consultants, focus groups, etc. Just part of the transparency in our legal system when it comes to jury selection in usually high profile cases. Having been a criminal trial juror (selected once out of three summonses), and voir dired, I understand the necessity for such a procedure. To have the death penalty as an option in a trial, a juror must be able to sentence someone to death ("death qualified"). From my own experience with a non-DP trial, just a run-of-the-mill attempted murder one, there are potential jurors who make claims that they can never, never mind you, judge someone else. With a juror like that on a jury, our legal system would grind to a halt. There are also those, and they are similar to some anti's on this board, who could only convict if they were 100% certain that guilt was shown; they have no concept of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Some jurors cannot make logical inferences; no way should they be on a jury. The ADA in the case I was on used, during voir dire, the following example: "You get on the subway in the morning and there is sunshine. During your 45 minute ride to work underground, other passengers board with wet raincoats and folded umbrellas dripping with water. Though you have not seen it raining, can you make the inference that it is raining outside?" Those who cannot make that inference do not have a logical enough mind to sit on a jury. Hardly any case is as tv portrays them, and many do not have neat and tidy confessions to soothe a juror's conscience. I must admit that if a potential juror lies during voir dire, gets on a jury, then is obstinate in the deliberation process and will not listen to reason enunciated by other jurors, then that juror should be charged with perjury, a criminal offense. To get on a jury to circumvent the legal process, or to make money later after a high profile case, is obstructionism. The whole system suffers from the deliberate and obdurate actions of these types. It also sickens me when jurors hang out with the defendent after an acquittal, as recently happened in the Whacko Jacko case where a juror went to the post verdict party at Neverland with their child. Rick, Thanks for the reply. I hear what you're saying. The critical term is "reasonable" - the old objective test - & it is the beauty of the legal system. It's not what you or I think but what a reasonable person would. Not to say you or I aren't reasonable!! Don't get me wrong re the transparency of juries & the legal system but Australia - in my state of Victoria anyway - is different. Juries cannot make comment after verdict including high paying interviews & vetting is limited to challenges for cause & without cause etc. Jury selction seems to detract from the legal issues to a point & makes psychologists very rich. Guru. |
|
