I think you're conflating conviction and punishment with that Subject. ;-)
As the earlier links make clear, yes, people who are adamantly opposed to the death penalty can be excluded from juries in capital cases. But, as we know, people can be excused from juries for lots of reasons (each side can exclude people for no reason - but not for impermissible reasons) during voi dire -
http://en.wikipedia....lection#Voir_dire
Note that a "death qualified" jury in a capital case must believe that life imprisonment is a possible sentence as well -
http://en.wikipedia....th-qualified_jury - they can't believe that death is the only valid sentence if they find the defendant guilty. Also, mitigating factors must be considered -
http://en.wikipedia....the_United_States Those who take eye-for-an-eye literally would be excluded. The law controls, not a person's religious beliefs.
How would this impact jury nullification? The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that juries had to decide whether the death penalty was imposed - not a judge. If a jury finds someone guilty of a capital crime, what happens if they are then unable to unanimously decide on the death penalty? In Virginia, a sentence of death has to be unanimous on certain factors (and maybe elsewhere) -
http://www.washingto...009091801397.html
After listening to evidence in a trial last year, a Fairfax jury deliberated eight hours over two days before deciding that Prieto should die for his crimes. But the Virginia Supreme Court found two flaws in the verdict form, a standard template in the state code, that was used by that jury.
Virginia law requires that a jury find one or both of two so-called aggravating factors -- that the crimes were vile and depraved or that the criminal is a future danger -- to send someone to the death chamber. The court ruled that the verdict form did not make clear that a jury must unanimously agree on one or both of those factors before recommending a death sentence. Instead, they said, the form suggested that some jurors could find Prieto a danger to society while others could agree on the vileness of the crimes.
The form, the court ruled, also did not make clear that a jury could find that one or both aggravating factors were present and still choose to spare a defendant's life.
"The Virginia Supreme Court is saying that if you are going to seek death, even in a conservative state, the law controls, and the law says if jurors find one or two aggravating factors, they still have the right to impose life instead of death," said Peter D. Greenspun, a Fairfax lawyer who represented Prieto at trial and has handled numerous capital cases.
There are still some safeguards, even if people on the jury do believe that the death penalty is fine and dandy. Nullification is still applicable, though not as "easy" as it would be if an Amnesty International member was on the panel.
I agree that jury selection certainly has issues, and has had a nasty history in the US in the past. I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to finally determine (in the next 10 years?) that the death penalty is unconstitutional and the issues with impartial juries handing it down will be moot.
Cheers,
Scott.
This skews juries in favor of conviction
