ANSWERS: 39
  • Yes. If the evidence said he did it, then i would vote guilty. That is the role i play in that court room. Let the judge look at the mitigating circumstances and factor them in when sentencing.
  • Intellectually, I know it's wrong to take the law into your own hands, but honestly? I don't think I could bring myself to convict the guy. My heart would be broken for what he and his family had been through.
  • What a great question! I think I would be able to find him guilty, if, we as a jury got to impose the sentence. Give the man probation, or "time served", something like that. I can't imagine sending him to jail, but intellectually I can't imagine saying it was OK.
  • Yeah, I'd give him a medal for being a caring parent. Some guys are out there raping and even killing their own children, and here's someone who is on the opposite side of the spectrum. I would feel it's like spitting on the dead child's grave for punishing his/her parent for avenging his/her death. I couldn't send him/her to jail. Temporary insanity.
  • I honestly don't know. I don't believe in vigilante justice. What you think is punishable by death might not seem so severe in my eyes. Without legal standards, checks and balances, anarchy would ensue. And if I don't support the death penalty, how could I support this crime? Then there's the chance that the guy got it wrong. Not long ago there was a case where a father killed the man his daughter had said molested her...only she had made it up and now there's one dead innocent man and one father in prison. That said, if I were positive the man the defendant killed had indeed raped and killed his child, I would find it very difficult to impose more pain into the man's life. I can't imagine the grief and anger. Do I believe the world is better without a man who would harm a child like that or do I believe we should be judged by the sum of our actions rather than a single act? Good question. I hope I never find myself in the situation.
  • ... not to be nit-picky, but your question says he was already convicted ... it should say, "on trial for" ... ... anyway, I would look at the evidence objectively and if he did kill, then I would say, "guilty" ... but under the circumstances, I would also recommend leniency in the sentencing and would suggest the minimum sentence.
  • The law is not based on emotion but governing with rules and the punishments for breaking those rules. While my heart would hate it, I would follow the law. The law is there for a reason and sure, who would not think to themselves that the guy deserved the right to do it? However, if we start bending the laws based on emotion then why even have them? Trust me.. we need those laws and we need people not to have any reason to be able to take another's life. The law is there to help protect us and to protect us from being judged on emotion .. even our own. I would follow the proper guidelines of the law regarding the matter and apply them.
  • Not guilty. I couldn't convict someone for doing the same thing I would do.
  • I would have to tell the Judge of my "bias" in the defendants favour and he would probably have me taken off the jury.
  • If it was prooven that he did it, I'd put the needle in his arm myself!
  • That is a tough one. I don't know what I would do. I would feel that the rapist and murderer deserved to die, but that doesn't change that the law says it's illegal. I would have to weigh the evidence, and if it is proven to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that the man killed this horrible man then I would have to convict. But I would look for any reason to vote not-guilty.
  • Oh do I hate to say this...it hurts, really! But yes, he is guilty! Can I blame him...H*LL no, I would have done it too! But he still took another man's life, unfortunately the why doesn't change that! --- I am almost certain that he could get away with a not guilty by reason of temporary insanity...I'm pretty sure in a situation like that anyone would snap!
  • If he was accused of killing the man, than all I have to say is they better make sure they put forth a flawless case. Which personally I find impossible to do. The jury's duty is to not convict if you have reasonable doubt. I can always find reasonable doubt. If it was not for courts and such I make the man a law maker.
  • With a shotgun, oohhh kkkaaaaayyyyy (say it like lil john)
  • I have served jury duty 6 times. You are given guide lines to follow, as long as you stay within those guide lines as the law requires you have no problem. Of course you will have normal human compassion for this person......but that's not what you are there for!
  • I sat on a jury for a domestic violence trial. The court system is very helpful in explaining the points of law and letting you know what is needed to return a guilty verdict. I would be able to sit on that jury and follow the letter of the law. It would be a hard thing to do, but for our system to work it must be applied fairly across the board.
  • i wouldnt like to be in that situation... i would feel great compassion for him, but at the same time, what if the rapists famitly killed the man cuz he killed their son, and then it just goes on and on...
  • I would thank him, too bad we cant give him something, for this service. I would do the same, if anyone raped my child.
  • When I was being queried by the prosecution to be impaneled I'd tell them that I refuse to inflict any more pain on a parent who lost their child. Therefore I'm sure that they would thank and excuse me. That way I would avoid jury duty and stand with my conscience. ;)
  • If I was on the jury I would try not to form verdict before the trial. I would understand how someone would react like that. I believe I would do the same thing.
  • I'd say he was guilty, but I would vote not guilty. I'd then pin a medal on his chest. We need more outrage at crimes like that. We need the penalty to be a little outside the court rooms for some laws. Hang the MF rapist by his dick and watch it tear off as he fell into a vat of acid. Even that would be too good. Let the father of the girl have him. Put the father and the rapist in a room together. If the rapist survives the first 24 hours, he gets to go to jail forever, if not who gives a shit?
  • I'm not completely sure what I'd do but I can tell you this.... if it had been my child I'd find him and end his life. It would seem to me like a victimless crime as he was never human anyway. Whatever happened after that would be fine with me. My life at that point might be over but what would be more important to me would be that his would be too. Knowing how child rapists and murderers are treated by other prisoners I'd probably be very well respected there.
  • I'd say Not Guilty and buy the man a drink. Some does that to my child I'll rip his throat out with my teeth.
  • In my eyes I will only see that this person is innocent and I'd never even think anything else. Justified Homicide is what I would see plain and simple.
  • I'm sure I'd be convinced 100% of his guilt. Hopefully, no one on the jury would contest my "Not Guilty" vote.
  • I would not be able to serve on that jury because I would feel he was completely justified in what he did.
  • My sympathy lies purely with the family who is suffering, and not the perpetrator of the crime. My vote would be not guilty, as he will suffer the loss of a loved one for the rest of his life, whereas the perpetrator is still living, after he caused pain, injury and suffering to a child
  • Sorry to start with a correction but if I was on the jury of a man 'convicted', he would have already been found guilty. I'll take it that he's only been charged.;) There are a lot of factors to consider here or hypothesise about. Most importantly, what is the charge? Murder or manslaughter? Considerations would be whether it was premeditated - did he go looking for the victim? If so, how long after learning of his child's fate? What was the murder weapon and was there premeditation in the accuisition of the weapon? What was the mental state of the man in question and did he have a history of mental illness? These are things that the court would have to take into account when sentencing.
  • hellll no the man is innocent, i'm not one for killing but there are gray areas to everything.
  • I would impartially observe the evidence. If evidence could show he did kill, then I would have no problem saying he was guilty ... but I would also add a request for leniency in sentencing because of the circumstances.
  • depends.. was this premeditated or a crime of imminent passion
  • The job of a juror is to determine the innocence or guilt of a person for the crime which he is being convicted of. Regardless of how legitimate his motives may have been. That person still killed a man. whether the man deserved to die or not is not for one person to decide. As a juror I would have to say he is guilty of the crime of murder. As a human being I would forgive him many times over.
  • I'd find him guilty of homicide (he did kill someone), but not murder. There's also a thing called jury nullification. Basically, if people think someone's guilty under the law, but the law sucks, they can find not guilty as a form of protest. Judges don't like it, but it's perfectly legal. I suppose that would be another option in this situation.
  • Vigilante justice?! I dunno. But if I were a jury member, I'd weigh the facts of this individual case & follow the Judge's instructions. [Not clever or funny, but honest?!] ;-)
  • You mean accused?!If you as jury member believes the man is innocent and there's hard evidence the man in question is quilty? He's quilty!! Its work!! You just turn a switch!! You have to in the name of justice!!
  • Sorry!! I mean, thats just manslaughter and he has to suffer the consequentions of his actions! Its understandeble he killed that beast, but you may not take right in own hands! I would just turn a switch :S :(
  • i would have no problem deciding and stating he was guilty if the evidence proved it, and i am supposing it would, although i would feel bad about it
  • I would vote "not guilty" regardless of the evidence against him. It is a principle known as "jury nullification". If a juror believes that a law is wrong, or wrongly applied or the accused was justified in breaking the law. I would try to convince my fellow jurors to vote that way also. At the least, I could "hang" the jury. At best, get a "not guilty" verdict and he walks free. +5
  • I would handle that situation by ... listening to the case that was made. I'm not about to pre-judge the thing based on a short Q with no detail. I could convict a person of first degree murder if the prosecution could prove that case, no matter "why" the murder was committed. But "killing the person" as you posit, doesn't necessarily mean that he coldly pulled a gun and shot an unarmed person. There could have been a fight, an element of self-defense, a vehicular or other type of accidental killing, etc. It's kind of silly to have a mock-up of some kind of case in your own head ... and then not deliver it, and just say "... convicted of killing the person ..." with no detail whatsoever, and then expect any kind of cogent and reasoned answer.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy