A defendant is on trial for murder. He will be found guilty if his actions are judged to have been deliberate, and premeditated. The jurors find as follows:
Juror #. Deliberate? Premeditated?
Juror 1: No Yes
Juror 2: No Yes
Juror 3: Yes No
Juror 4: No Yes
Juror 5: Yes Yes
Juror 6: Yes No
Juror 7: Yes Yes
Juror 8: No Yes
Juror 9: Yes No
Juror 10: Yes No
Juror 11: Yes Yes
Juror 12: Yes Yes
A majority believe it was deliberate, and a majority believe it was premeditated, so the man is given the death penalty.
In subsequent interviews, the jurors are asked if they think the man should have received the death penalty and a majority of them say no.
How can this be? Was the man wrongfully convicted?
1) The jury usually finds a defendant guilty or not-guilty. Unless the legal framework involved has an automatic death penalty upon conviction, the jury would not be involved in the sentencing once they find the defendant guilty? So the problem statement is not aligned with the question posed?
2) To the best I can find, the legal definition of "premeditation" is "to have thought out the act ahead of time". So I wonder about those jurors who said "Yes" to premeditation but "No" to "Deliberate"; what do they then think the defendant was "thinking about ahead of time" if not the crime he/she then committed? The logic seems to fail here?
Possible answer: Notice that only 3 jurors said "Yes" to both actions, which means that they are the only ones that individually believe that the defendant is "guilty", by the problem definition. Clearly not a majority, nor obviously, unanimous, as some countries require. Maybe this is the answer?
|
|
Posted by Kenny M
on 2021-05-05 12:04:51 |
Some thoughts/questions and a possibility
