Posted on May 23rd, 2013 No comments
What happened in the Jodi Arias case is a travesty. I think any self-aware person would agree, based on what we’ve seen in the media, but I agree with Clint, a caller to the Mike Broomhead show on 550 KFYI in Phoenix, AZ: Very likely, one juror, maybe two, couldn’t live with themselves, knowing they decided to put someone to death. If just one juror feels it would be wrong to play eye-for-an-eye, and dug in their heels against the other jurors who thought Jodi Arias should be put to death, well, that’s the system we have.
That doesn’t mean the system is broken. I think the death penalty is warranted in this case, but I don’t know what one or more jurors are thinking, either. It’s a shame for the family that they didn’t just all agree to go with life to end it so we can all get on with our lives.
Judeo-Christian heritage baked into our justice system ensures that if you’re innocent, (I do not believe Jodi Arias is) that one guy or gal in the jury could be saving your life by preventing your death. I want to continue to believe in the system, even if it appears broken in this instance.
But I have a question…
Are Prosecutors allowed to explain to the jury, the cost to the taxpayers of Live vs Death? Does that figure in, or do the jurors have to disregard the cost? I’m guessing they can’t discuss it. The costs shouldn’t affect the jury’s decision, should they?
Just throwing out some random numbers—let’s say death is a $100k one time fee vs $100k a year for 60 years—the cost to the taxpayer if they give Jodi Arias life.
That doesn’t seem fair to me.
We talk about fairness in the media a lot, particularly the so-called MSM, the IRS against Conservatives who have to pay their fair share, for example.
Why is it the little guy is always on the losing end of that fairness equation?