> > > No, that would be manslaughter, not murder. No one is put to death for things that are accidental.
> >
> > Oh? You would have to be convicted of murder, yes. That doesn't mean that it wasn't *actually* manslaughter. Juries are only human, and mistakes do happen.
> >
> > winter"Killing people is just wrong. Even if it is legal."mute
>
> The problem with that statement is that juries don't decide which charge to try the defendant under. The prosecutor does. The prosecutor says "We'll try the defendant for murder-2." The prosecutor must then prove to the jury that the defendant committed all aspects of the charge.
>
> If someone is on trial for manslaughter, they are not on trial for murder. The criteria to satisfy the two charges are different. If the prosecutor feels he can win the murder charge, he'll try for the murder charge. If not, he'll try for a lesser charge.

Does that mean that everyone tried and convicted of murder was actually guilty? Or just that the prosecutor could convince the jury that he was?

The point I was making was that these errors do occur.

> Then again, I feel that you're under the assumption that once one is found guilty of a murder charge, you think that they're instantly given the death penalty. That's not true. After the verdict is rendered, there is a penalty phase of the trial where the convicted defendant can be penalized any number of ways. One might have killed another human and be imprisoned for twenty years. Another might be imprisoned for life. Another might be given the death penalty. It has to do with the nature of the crime.

I am well aware that only 400 (?) people have been sentanced to death since it was decided that execution was not "cruel and unusual punishmant" in 1967, and that this is a very small percentage of the people conviceted of murder. Again, the point is that of those 400 people, can you be sure that every single one was guilty and deserved to die?

winter"pathelogical poster"mute