Jodi Aries Jury Split 8/4

I heard an unsubstantiated repost that the jury in the Jodi Aries case was split 8-to-4 in favor of the death penalty and was, therefore, hung.  I think that with a split that large, they actually brought back a 'no death' verdict, and the prosecutor should negotiate a deal for life without parole rather than spend all the money to empanel another jury and put the victim's family through all this again.  8-to-4 is, after all, a pretty big split.  That means that a third of the jury was not convinced by his argument.  A hugh deficit to overcome.

Why was the split so big?  I can't say for certain, because so far the jury is not talking, but several possibilities come to mind.  First, those opposed to the death penalty may simply have felt that the prosecutor just didn't convince them that the murder was really premeditated.  Second, some one or more of the jurors was actually morally opposed to the death penalty and lied about their ability to impose the death sentence just so they could get on the jury and impede the process or prevent an execution.  If so, that would be a prosecutable offense if it can be proven.  A third possibility might be that at least one of the jurors was an anarchist dedicated to interfering with the government and its processes regardless of what the issue might be.  Given that the jury was also split 7-to-5 on the 1st degree murder conviction, it seems to me that maybe the split on the penalty phase was a combination of the above reasons.

Now, the media seems to be hung up on the idea that four people refused to budge off of their position against sentencing Jodi to die.  I should point out that one could just as easily say that eight people absolutely refused to move off their position to see Jodi executed.  They might be accused of being too hungry for blood.  

The Talking Heads

The title of this blog today refers specifically Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace.  How can these women continue to talk so much?  How can they repeat themselves so often?  Both can ask a question and then talk for another 5 minutes before giving their guest a chance to answer the original question.  It makes me so nauseous that I want to puke even before I can change the channel.  It is my opinion that these two talking heads are really sick.  I don't know these women except by what little I have seen of then on television, but if they should ever find themselves in hell, I believe an appropriate punishment is that they be made to listen to themselves 24 hours a day throughout all eternity.

Life or Death

Jodi Aries gave an interview after her conviction of 1st degree murder in which she told the media that she would prefer the death penalty rather than life in prison.  Since then the media has been hyping that statement trying to whip the public into speculating whether or not Jodi is trying to use reverse psychology to save herself from getting the death penalty.  OK.  I'll play along.

I think she really does prefer death to life in prison.  Two reasons.  First: Jodi Aries is a person who wants to be in control of everything in her life.  If she get the death penalty, she can go down telling herself that it is by her wish, her decision to die, and no one else made the decision.  She maintains control to the end.

The second possibility is that she realizes that spending 23 hours a day in a 7 X 10 cell is not gonna be fun.  That's a very small space, especially after one puts in a bed, a toilet, and a sink.  What's left is barely room enough to move around.  And this confinement will last for perhaps 50 years.  That's more that 18,000 days if she lives to the age of 82, which is conceivable.

Hell, given the choice, I'd prefer death too.  It would give me some measure of freedom, to paraphase her.  The question is what sentence to handdown.  Part of me thinks that she should get life without the possibility of parole.  Along with that would be a provision to provide her with a straight edge razor for a period of one week with which she can cut her own throat if she really wants to die.  Another part of me wants to go with the death penalty, and get it done quickly to save the State the cost of a lengthy incarceration. 

Some would argue that death is cruel and unusual punishment.  I disagree.  A lifetime in a 7 X 10 cell for 23 hours a day 7 days a week for 50 years or so is a lot more cruel for most people.  And by extention, making a death-row inmate wait for 10/12/15/20 years for the sentence to be carried out is cruel.  Execution of sentence needs to be swift in cases as clear-cut as Jodi Aries' case is. No more than 2/3 years for appeal should be allowed in cases where the evidence is so strong.

Self-Defence? Manslaughter? Or Premeditated Murder?

I'm so glad that the Jodi Aries murder case has finally gone to the Jury, but I was surprised to learn by the Judge's instruction to the Jury that there are three different types of murder in the first degree.  I had thought that Murder One always involved premeditation, but apparently that's not the case.  One can have Murder One without premeditation.

Now as to the case against Ms. Aries.  Having watched much of the trial and listened to the closing arguments for both sides, I naturally have to ask how I would vote were I on the jury.  The first thing to note is that Jodi Aries is guilty of murder.  She has already admitted that. But was it self-defence as she suggests?  Under the best circumstance I can conceive of, which requires me to believe her version of events, I am forced to conclude that it was not a self-defence killing as defined by law, nor was it a case of provoked manslaughter, though I do believe that Travis Alexander did say or do something that pushed her into action. 

Why was it not a case of self-defence?  Because in order for a case for self-defence to hold up, the one making that claim 1) must use only a measured amount of force equal to, or just barely greater than, the force being used by the attacker, and 2) the use of said force must cease when the attacker either disengages willfully or is disabled to the point where s/he no longer presents a credible threat.  (As to this second requirement, the law does not make any exceptions for simply snapping under stress.)  Since Jodi Aries' own account of the event clearly does not fall within the legal requirement, it could not be classified as a case of self-defence.

But might it have been a case of manslaughter as her attorney tried to suggest to the jury in his closing argument?  After all, Travis Alexander was a pretty big guy compared to her own much smaller frame.  I think not, simply because after having stabbed him 27 times (including one wound that would have ultimately been fatal in and of itself if not quickly treated), she then took the time to cut his throat by severing not just his juggler, but also his carotid artery and his trachea.  Again, the law does not allow for a person to be so out of control that they can't stop.  If it did, people could do all kinds of slaughter and get away with it in the name of passion.  Jodi is, therefore, guilty of Murder Two at the very least, for which she could receive a life sentence. 

Now about premeditation.  Had she simply shot Travis as soon as the opportunity presented itself, there would be little doubt of premeditation.  But she didn't do that.  Instead, she let several opportunities pass without shooting him, making me wonder if her intent really was to kill him when she drove to Arizona.  It took me a few minutes to realize that premeditation was demonstrated not by the fact that she had a gun in her purse, but by the fact that she shot Travis Alexander after stabbing him and cutting his throat. 

Once his throat was cut, he was finished.  He may have struggled to pull himself up to the level of the sink while holding his neck, but if so, it was only briefly before falling to the floor again.  People whose throats have been cut don't move more than one or two feet at most before they are down for the count.  And while he lay bleeding out on the bathroom floor, she went into the next room, perhaps the closet, and retrieved a gun.  (Whether it was his or hers really doesn't matter). She then returned to the bathroom.  In that interval (the time it took to leave the bathroom and return with a gun), Jodi Aries had ceased her attack on Travis.  The rage has passed, and she now deliberately sought out the means to make certain he would die.  She returned to the bathroom and shot him in the head from a distance of at least 2 to 3 feet.  And that shot was as cold blooded and premeditated as any shot ever fired. 

How ironic.  If she had left that gun at home, she might have been able to beat the Murder One charge simply by leaving the house after cutting his throat (depending on the Jury).  But as it is, she is definitely guilty of Premeditated Murder.

I suppose that some would argue that Jodi Aries didn't actually shoot Travis Alexander until after he was already dead.  Therefore, since you cannot kill someone who is already dead, premeditation at that point doesn't matter, and maybe they would be right, but I doubt it; and I don't think the jury would be swayed by that argument either.  That argument would hold up better if she shot him an hour later than she did, but doing it as part 'n' parcel of the original crime is enough in my mind to make it part of the original intent.

Hold The Presses ... We Have Breaking News ...

I heard on the news last night that the two bombs that exploded in Boston two days ago were hidden inside a couple of Pressure Cookers, so I thought it would be a good idea if we banned the manufacture and sale of Pressure Cookers.  That way no coward or anarchist can use them to hide his or her Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in them, and things like this week's attack in Boston won't be able to happen. 

While we're at it, perhaps we should also look into the possiblity of banning the manufacture and sale of nails and ball bearings since they are so often used in the construction of IEDs.  Maybe we can attach this legislation to the proposed gun legislation.  I'm sure those on the hard left would agree that this would solve the violence problem in the country.