Pros And Cons Of Horney's Trial

591 Words3 Pages

As we discussed in class I came to the conclusion that Booth’s argument about blameworthiness is more persuasive. In Booth’s trial the defense argues that using a victim impact statement violates the 8th amendment. It is cruel and unusual to convict a defendant based off emotion, not reason. During trial the claim that the defendant did not and could not foresee the pain and suffering of the family therefore cannot use blameworthiness. In Payne’s trial they argued that blameworthiness is a factor because it caused actual harm to the family. Ironically that's all they argued, they didn’t bother to use the 8th amendment as a defense.

The benefits of being able to nullify a verdict as a jury is being able to provide a different socio-economic perspective. A judge works with crime everyday, most likely not living in the ghetto where some jurors may live. Juror’s with different perspectives of a crime can cause more linancy and sympathy towards a defendant. On the other hand, emotion and reason can be easily confused by a juror due to lack of knowledge. Not all jurors have knowledge on the law, therefore not …show more content…

In a trial the prosecution and defense can exercise this right a limited number of times. This can be used when a lawyer believes that a juror is biased or the juror is bothered by a question during voir dire (examination of witness). Challenge for cause is different because a unlimited amount of jurors can be excused by the consent of the judge. In these cases jurors feel as if they cannot continue because of personal bias due to personal relationships, and they voluntarily tell judges that. Although prosecutors cannot use peremptory challenges on the basis of race, they tend to use excuses like not sitting properly, and not being intelligent enough. These are reasons that goes unquestionable, but have been proven to be used in replacement of a racial

More about Pros And Cons Of Horney's Trial