(July 18, 2014 at 9:53 am)Tonus Wrote:Meh here the jury doesn't have a lot of power so I can't comment on that, but I can say the victims shouldn't have a weight in the sentence, the sentence should be decided by the court as being the best option for society, not really because the victim is sad and wants 'justice'. It violates the principle of impartiality. In my country it is clear that the system is not there for the victim, but for the whole society, the victim doesn't have a saying on the sentence. At most, the exterior conduct and the relation between the criminal and victim can have relevance from an objective standpoint (example, if they are first degree relatives the crime is considered more serious)(July 18, 2014 at 9:44 am)Blackout Wrote: What a shame. Can I ask if witness evidence is allowed for the death penalty? If so I find it repulsive, testimonial evidence is so volatile and subjective that it shouldn't be allowed for the most serious criminal offensesI'm not entirely sure how the rules work for that. Witness testimony is usually part of the case made by both sides and must be considered by the jury when deliberating. I don't know if there are instructions for them to give more weight to evidence or to witness testimony or if they are left to determine that on their own.
However, the sentencing for a crime is separate from the determination of innocence or guilt. For death penalty crimes there is a separate deliberation if the jury returns a guilty verdict, where it is then decided if the death penalty will be among the options that the judge can apply when sentencing the guilty party/parties. This may include testimonials from family/friends of the victim(s), which are often very emotional and disturbing and can have a huge impact on the proceedings.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you