07-30-2012, 08:07 PM
(07-30-2012, 08:01 PM)imsuchawildflower Wrote: Because ultimately, the judge decides his fate. His restrictions are what
the jury restricts him with when they reach a verdict regarding sentencing.
Usually, the judge will go along with the jury's reccomendations for
punishment, but there are times that the judge can say, hey jury, I
disagree with you and this is why I disagree and this is what Im going
to sentence this criminal to, instead of what you think I should do.
In this case, the jury, by NOT making a decision one way or the other,
has taken the death penalty off the table for the judge.
The jury is to make decisions based soley on the facts, and testimony.
Not on conjecture, emotion and any "facts" that would be put into a
victims impact statement.
Then why did his family get to speak on his behalf? I'm just saying that should be changed.