But death penality in most democratic nations involves some henious crime. Also court appointed lawyers (most of time times) may not have the incentive to spend lot of their billing time unless it is a prestigious case/ high profile case for the firm (which brings in more future business).

Do you agree with this?

But, I have seen a small case where there was one wealthy person (A) -and one poor person (B) were involved in a brush with law. (A) has to spend $$ on a lawyer to prove his innocence- while (B) went ahead with legal aid – (B) harassed (A) because he had nothing much to lose by fighting the case- he was simply dragging it in the hope of geting the better of (A). In ordinary situations where both would have had to pay their lawyers – they would have come to a settlement faster. Since the stakes were higher for the wealthy person (he was spending money- while (B) was not), he had to settle in the end for something lesser than what he rightfully deserved.

Quoting you- “But to be fair, how can we sweep aside the fact that 74% of those who got the death penalty between 1995 & 2000 were minorities?” – over 70% of those arrested are minorities (I might be wrong- my number is from the movie ‘CRASH’).

I feel that the only criteria in favor of death penalty is – if it is a enough deterrent for future crime. If we are able to prove this through research- then capital punishment is for the common/collective good.

I’m working on the next part, hope to publish it this week.

Another subject (jury) where we can agree to disagree. I do believe that in most cases (even the complex ones), collective intelligence of the jury works out well under guidance from the judge. The judge can advice jury what is admissible and what is not.

Interesting post and discussion. Hoping to see the next part.

Ganesh

I do believe judges have a decent understanding of the scientific & forensic evidence presented at trials. For one, they know what kind of evidence is admissible & what isn’t; They read about it, get sufficient exposure in many trials, know prior cases that used it – the works. While they are not experts themselves, their grasp of such matters can’t be compared with the awareness levels of lay-people (from where the jury is picked).

All considered, in complex cases, I think using a jury makes the judgment more subjective. They lack the ability to be objective enough. For what is considered objective enough in the eyes of the law, is the ability to apply the statutes to the case. How can a jury be objective enough, if they don’t understand the nitty-gritty of the law? Only an expert can untangle such cases.

Perhaps the system works well in simpler cases. And as a counter-balance to the power of the judiciary.