Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted?
Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted?
This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let's be civil.
And if you're a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
You're viewing a single thread.
The repeated mention of "jury nullification" here is a cop-out.
Jury nullification is essentially an admission that the law itself is conditionally unjust and the popular belief is that it should be ignored this time, nullified. So why pretend the legal system is always valid in the first place? I do not see the legal system as fair or representative of the people; if it was, this assassination wouldn't have ever happened. The laws are made by politicians and the politicians represent the owner class, those with enough money to purchase politics.
If you don't want to see the assassin prosecuted, if you too "didn't see anything", then why insist "murder is murder" when you clearly think this one doesn't deserve equal treatment? It's utopian idealism, the kind of rule that holds true in an ignorant vacuum experiment but not in this unfair rigged game of a world.
The appropriate sentence for this crime is: "Keep up the important work."
I remember at jury duty how they spend a lot of time telling us that we have to decide if the dependant broke the law specifically. Implying that we aren't suppose to decide if they deserve punishment. But I am pretty sure that isn't in the constitution. I think a jury should consider if the law is just. I believe you can get a mistrial if a jury member admits to such a thing.