Why Do Juries Wimp Out On Death Penalty?
Two men, just doing their jobs as armored car guards in Northeast Philadelphia are shot to death in cold blood. Last week, the triggerman, Mustafa Ali, was convicted. Last night, a common pleas court jury sentenced him to life in prison, rejecting the DA’s appeals for a death sentence.
It has always amazed me how juries are reluctant to impose death penalties. I want to know what goes into the mind of a jury,which heard uncontested testimony of the vicious killings of William Widmaier and Joseph Allulo. The killer expressed no emotion during the trial, but for the victim’s families, the pain was all-too-familiar.
Why do juries rarely impose death as the punishment? It is true that death penalties are rarely carried out, but the threat of dying is always there. And the killer never knows when the solitary march to execution, will come.
All juries must decide on the merits. The testimony in this case was so dead-on. Why did the jury let this man live? So many juries follow the same pattern. When you sentence someone to death for a heinous crime, is it a sin? Perhaps some of these soft jury members think more about the killer, than they do about those left behind – the families of the victims.
Does the punishment fit the crime? Certainly, not in this case.

Comments(11)












