Yesterday, the jury in the Zacharias Moussaoui death penalty trial delivered it’s verdict. Although they had deemed, earlier in the trial, that convicted terrorist Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty, they elected to imprison him for the rest of his life without possibility for parole.
Talk radio has been very busy, this morning, telling us why the jury did what it did. I am not an attorney, so the arcana of jury behavior is lost on me, but I’ll tell you this: I am pleased that the jury took the high road. The jurors appear to have done the right thing and weighed their decision on the evidence versus taking the much easier, more emotion-based route.
The jury system worked yesterday. I wish it worked more often.
The jurors made me proud of our too-frequently failing judicial system. They made me proud that we are still a nation of laws. They made me proud to be an American.
2 comments:
I had different, not as generous, thoughts about why the jury did not give him the death penalty. Do you think they factored in that he wanted to die, therefore punishment is greater by imprisoning him for life? Not to mention the whole "martyr" aspect and denying him that "honor."
Whatever their reasons, I too was relieved the jury did what it did.
Truthfully, I would say that in either instance it was the right thing to do.
Post a Comment