The Murder of All Justice, By the State

Very busy for the next few days, but wanted to post this news item, along with a brief comment on the supreme derangement of all human judicial systems. The article deals with the fact that in amerikkka, in order to qualify to participate as a juror in certain criminal cases, you must be found willing to directly commit the murder of fellow human beings. Here is the article:

‘Death-Qualified’ Juror Search Slows Marathon, Theater Cases

One prospective juror was brutally frank when asked whether he could consider a sentence of life in prison for the man accused of bombing the Boston Marathon.
“I would sentence him to death,” he said, then added: “I can’t imagine any evidence that would change how I feel about what happened.”
Another prospective juror said he couldn’t even consider the death penalty, telling the court, “I just can’t kill another person.”
The two men are on opposite sides of the capital punishment debate, but both unlikely to make it on the jury for the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: to be seated for a death penalty case a juror must be willing — but not eager — to hand down a sentence of either life or death.
The process of finding “death qualified” jurors has slowed down jury selection in federal case against Tsarnaev, who is charged with setting off two bombs that killed three people and injured more than 260 during the 2013 marathon. It is expected to do the same in the state trial of James Holmes, the man accused of killing 12 people and injuring 70 others in a suburban Denver movie theater in 2012.
The process is designed to weed out jurors who have strong feelings for or against the death penalty. A 1985 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court said a juror can lawfully be excused if his or her views on the death penalty are so strong that they would prevent or substantially impair their ability to follow the law.
But death penalty opponents have long said the process is fundamentally unfair. They argue that death-qualified juries do not represent a true cross-section of the community because they end up being made up of either death penalty supporters or people willing to impose it under some circumstances.
“You end up with a jury with less women, less blacks, less Democrats … you end up with a jury that is skewed in ways that make it probably more conservative, more accepting of prosecution arguments, of state authority,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit organization that opposes executions.
The Capital Jury Project, a consortium of university researchers, interviewed about 1,200 jurors in 353 capital trials in 14 states beginning in the early 1990s. The group’s research has shown that death penalty juries are more likely to convict and that jurors often make up their minds about what punishment to hand down long before they’re supposed to, said William Bowers, director of the project.
After reaching a verdict, a trial enters the penalty phase, when prosecutors present evidence of aggravating factors, such as the brutality of the crime, to argue in favor of the death penalty while defense attorneys present mitigating factors, such as abuse as a child, to argue against it. Juries are then supposed to weigh those factors when deciding whether a defendant should get life or death.
“The principal finding is that half of the jurors said they knew what the punishment should be before the penalty stage of the trial and another one-quarter of them said they were pretty sure,” Bowers said. “The thing they don’t recognize or seem to have overlooked is that they are not supposed to decide what the punishment is until they hear the evidence in the second phase.”
Death penalty opponents have argued that to get around this kind of pre-judgment, separate juries should be chosen to hear evidence in the guilt phase and the punishment phase. But that idea has not gained traction.
So, justice in amerikkk consists of the government selectively screening out all citizen-slaves who are not homicidal, and barring them from saving from being murdered, tortured victim-creations that the government wants to murder. How’s that for a kick in the head, brainwashed idiots?!
Make no mistake, these perspective jurors are being asked to directly commit murder, because this is what recommending a death penalty sentence does. The government has decided that it is justice to commit murder, on an official level, against its own created victims, and in order to establish an illusion of legitimacy for this perversion, it bars any individual who is moral, ethical, sane, and fair enough to refuse to carry out the homicidal injustice of the state, from serving as a juror. And of course, by the same token, no judge who refuses to commit judicial murder via death penalty sentencing, is allowed to remain a criminal court judge.
Let us understand, all “law” and all judicial systems are specifically designed and structured to carry out whatever injustices the nation-state seeks to impose, as part of its criminal enterprise of universal terrorization and enslavement of all human beings.
It is with pride that I decree My unwavering support for all acts of murder, and for all murderers, in open defiance of the perverse hypocrisy of a judicial system which is founded and fully functions as a homicidal, malicious, and unjust structure which demands its participants be willing to commit direct murder.
Copyright © 2014-2064 The Seer of Forbidden Truth. All Rights Reserved

One Comment

  1. Isn’t it mind-boggling how the human mind works? Jurors chosen for death penalty cases will almost always support the death of a tortured victim, and the govt is aware of it. That’s why they choose them. Their stance is that they want to eliminate any biases–choosing death is very selective and bias

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *