But how is this not true of any criminal (or even civil, sometimes) case with photographic/videographic evidence? It would probably be a very short survey of judges, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, parole officers, PSI investigators, former jurors, etc. to find out if they'd had a case with stuff they didn't ever need to see. It's miserable, but it's part of our justice system.

There's probably a lengthy discussion/debate to be had about whether or not the prosecutors should have shown (or needed to) the full tape as evidence, but the core of your argument - that jurors should be shielded from unpleasant things - bears on *all* cases, not just death penalty cases. Graphic materials are evidence, and the jury is the finder of fact charged with weighing the evidence. And, ultimately, until someone amends the Sixth Amendment, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...."

The defense of liberty is not for the faint of heart. Unfortunately there are increasingly those, like you Mr. Richert, who are too faint of heart to stare down evil in our time.

Eradicating a beast like this Duncan is REQUIRED in a free society to keep the faith of the statement that all have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The judge that freed him to go on and do this crime is proof that he must pay the ultimate price for his actions. If he is left to live, he has the potential to exact more heartache on our society. It must not be left to chance that he could do so.

There is no question of innocence in this case, nor is there any question of his presence of mind. The tapes, as gruesome as they are, are necessary in this age to remove all doubt as to his depravity. If more people were ready to face and stand against evil, such tactics might not be required.

I agree with you that he will answer to a higher authority, and he will pay more dearly than with his mortal life. But he will do it sooner rather than later and that is JUST.

We'll see is this digusting individual really does want to die. If he does he will drop all his appeals immediately but as a person who has been dealing with another murder case and murderer for the past ten years I can tell you that once they get the death penalty they decide they want to live. There is no end to what these murderers and their attorneys will apppeal. In many cases they even blame the victims or their families for the sentences they receive. Unless you been personally involved with a murder case you have no idea how emoionally draining the process is. As to the people that are against the death penalty I would like to point out that although there is never closure for the family and friends of such a heious act there is the satisfaction that the person responsible for the murder is no longer among us and could never be released on a technicality or escape from prison. I personally do not care if the death penalty deteres anyone or not it is the correct punishment for murder!!!

Kevin - Maybe the problem isn't with the (death) penalty, it's with the process?

..to everyone who had to participate in or serve in this case. I don't think anyone could ever imagine a case as disturbing as this, nor could they possibly wish jury duty on anyone. Unfortunately, having a group of citizens sit in judgement is essential if we are to have the death penalty in this country. Perish the thought of what life would be like if these decisions were left up to judges, especially in Idaho.

...because there are so many arguments against it. You touched on a couple of them, Kevin, but there are even more:

1. It is immoral to take life. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. The death penalty is barbaric and has no place in civilized society. Capital punishment runs contrary to the rule of law, which requires respect for human life and dignity.

2. The hundreds of exonerations mean that the unreliable eyewitness identifications, coerced false confessions, contaminated DNA, and bad lawyering show an unjust system based on the perceived value of the victim and perceived level of evil in the defendant. Those without the capital get the punishment. People in poverty or on society's fringes cannot afford private investigators, psychologists, or experienced legal counsel in a society that claims 'innocent until proven guilty,' but which can often practice the assumption of guilt following arrest.

3. The process seeks outcomes of retaliation, not restoration: At its conclusion, additional families grieve for the extinguishment of human life. Pain overrides closure - is that justice? A life, once taken, cannot ever be restored. There is little resembling the reconciliation and healing achieved in the South African Truth & Reconciliation Commission and its opportunities for confrontation and healing when compared to our criminal system, with its dearth of rehabilitation and the metallic taste of retribution...retaliation and the vengeance of blood atonement.

4. Dollars and sense: It costs far more to incarcerate a person for life without the possibility of ever obtaining parole than it does to execute them. This is an argument that Republican Idaho could pay more attention to...At a minimum the dollar amount ranges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and can approach millions as the case grows in complexity and more investigators and attorneys analyze them for years in the appellate process - and it has to be done, because death is different...it's the most final of all forms of punishment and it can only be carried out after a complete and meaningful review of the case - and that process translates into tens of thousands of pages of documents, volumes of transcribed trial transcripts, depositions, motions, petitions, and expert consultations. The extensive direct appeal, post-conviction, and habeas appellate processes in state and federal court ensure a long period of time until any execution is actually considered. Duncan's execution will be expedited because it began in federal court and he plead guilty, so there was no need to prove his guilt and he skipped state court. His case is the exception that proves the rule. Let's pour our money into better equipping law enforcement to fight crime and solving cases instead of paying for an endless appellate process.

5. Lack of Deterrence - There is no genuine data establishing that the existence of the death penalty actually deters individuals from engaging in first degree murder. In fact, murder rates are highest in many southern states who lead our country in executions...such as Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, California, and Florida.

6. The Race Card - It doesn't apply in this case, but minorities are disproportionately represented in our nation's death row tiers. Since 1930, 90% of those executed for rape have been black. Forty percent of those executed since 1976 have been black, although blacks represent only 12% of our total population. The victim's race in almost every capital case is white. Capital punishment does not seem to be for 'the worst of the worst,' as we claim, but rather for minorities who kill whites.

7. Executions themselves can be cruel and unusual punishment, violating an individual's right to be free of such under the United States Constitution. Problems range from intoxicated executioners to incorrect doses of the chemical at injection, causing them excruciating pain as they remained conscious and paralyzed until their heart stopped. Read the botched execution stories from DeathPenaltyInfo.org only if you have a strong stomach or penchant for the macabre. Kind of like the people who exercised the choice to be in the courtroom to witness the videos of Duncan's perpetrations. Nobody needs those demonic visions dancing in their heads.

Enough. Guys on death row are celebrities. They have better access to legal counsel and get lots more opportunities for court and evidentiary hearings. Is that closure for a victim's family members? Hardly. Does it bring their loved one back? Never. Why give these men and women such a forum? Why drag a victim's family through the cruel process of years of endless appeals with no closure? Give a life sentence instead. No parole. Minimal appeal. Die in prison, living the reality of your crime every day and the fear of retribution from those others in prison who would love to take justice into their own hands and await their chance to make a name for themselves and join the celebrity tier.

Duncan clearly wants to die, else he would not have dismissed his counsel (ineffective assistance of counsel claims are primarily how the appellate process is prolonged for years in capital cases) and he would have put on mitigation evidence of what I'm sure were scores of incidents from Duncan's own past that helped to shape who he is and the decisions he made. Why give him the satisfaction of waiving his appeals and expediting his execution? Why allow him to martyr himself the way Timothy McVeigh did? Let's get on to making our society a better place, instead of wallowing together in its darkest places...

I feel proud that they had the strength and moral foundation to endure such a horrific trial and serve the People wisely, steadfastly and bravely.

Their service was absolutely necessary to carry justice forward in the name of all of us. Not only Idaho or America but the entire world.

It will never "close" anything as Mr. Groene stated but we all thank them and pray this sick chapter in human life never repeats. If it does though, we will need others like them.

It was a heavy weight to bear. Thank you jurors for so many things that it might be hard to explain but just THANKS.

Kevin:

Being on a jury is a duty, honor and privilege.

We are blessed to have the jury system that we do, with citizens willing to devote their time to a difficult task, which also happens to be one of the great things of this democratic republic.

Fortunately, Kevin, you don't control the jury system. You would - what? - skip trials were the crimes are, according to Kevin. too brutal for the jurors to take? Heaven save us from the Kevin's of the world.

American citizens are tough. There is never a task that they have not risen to.

Jurors serve, not because it is easy, but because it is their duty.

Kevin, you were not qualified to be on the jury and, contrary to your assertion, all of those selected were qualified to serve. Your front handed slap to them is noted.

Dear Jury members:

This is one of the most brutal cases many of us have heard of. However, there are many brutal cases, throughout the ages, mass tortures and murders, genocides and more, whereby fact finders must be exposed to the brutality of the crime. Contrary to Kevin's erroneous statement, such evidence must be reviewed, in order that justice is served.

No one disputes that some crimes will have long lasting, regrettable effects on all of you. It is unavoidable, as long as cruel criminals insist on expressing their evil will.

With all respect due to you all, thank you for taking on this difficult responsibility.

You did the right thing. Sometimes, and often, doing the right thing is not easy.

--------------------------------

PS, for Kevin, innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live.