The Role of the Jury in the Killing State

One thing struck me above all else in this article. This was the point Sarat made that prosecution attorneys insisted that jurors be shown brutal and visceral images and evidence evoking strong emotion in capital cases, however, there is no equivalent allowed for them to be able to see the brutality of the death penalty that they, themselves, are actually deciding to be someone's fate. It's a very interesting thought that jurors, the very people we put so much faith and responsibility on, on never really shown what exactly it is that they are choosing when they sentence someone to death.

Sarat seems to believe that this lack of exposure to the death penalty itself is by design. He explains that no such evidence is allowed in the courtroom by the defense. The defense is not allowed to actually make a contention that the penalty being served for a crime is actually more brutal than the crime it is punishing. Sarat also notes that jurors are far removed from the actually killing that they are sanctioning. They are not the ones flipping a switch or administering an injection. They also believe that there are failsafes such as appeals courts, where they can defer blaim should they have any attacks of conscious. I guess the biggest thing I got from the article was just that it's interesting too examine how much is done to make killing by the state an easier process.