From www.thedesertsun.com




The current case seems to reside on somewhat shaky eyewitness testimony from a single witness and evidence of previous bad acts. This confessed serial murder could well be free in 18 months if not convicted.

The question:

If you were on the jury would you vote guilty even if the evidence did not support a guilty verdict?

If you were on the jury would you vote guilty even if the evidence did not support a guilty verdict?

I saw the story of Coral Watts on Dateline or 60 Minutes about a month ago, and could not believe there was a possibility that this animal could be released - ever. He is an admitted serial killer. He told investigators that if he ever got out, he would kill again. In his confession, he claimed to have killed 80 women in addition to the 19 murders he confessed to under protection of immunity!

His confession and the two surviving victims’ testimony is plenty to allow me to support a guilty verdict with a clean conscience. The authorities are busy dredging up old cases and DNA evidence. Hopefully, there will be at least one solid piece of DNA evidence that will put the final nail in this scumbag's coffin. This man is evil and should never, EVER be freed. In fact, I wish he would suffer the same fate as Jeffrey Dahmer.

Story of Coral Watts Murders

(Emphasis added.)

The only possible way I can answer the exact question you asked is to say "Of course not!" If the evidence does not support a guilty verdict, how could I vote for conviction? Just because the crime is so horrible? Because I "know" the defendent is guilty, although I do not have enough evidence to support that opinion?

A confession is strong evidence, of course. This would have to be weighed in with other factors. We must keep in mind, however, that there is such a thing as a false confession. If other evidence is wanting, and there is some reason to question the validity of the confession, than I suggest that any reasonable person must vote to acquit.

Please do not misinterpret my opinion as inappropriate compassion for a violent monster. The exact facts of this case do not matter. In anything, I would suggest that the more serious the crime, the more careful the justice system must be to convict on the basis of accurate information. If I get a parking ticket which I don't deserve, I might grumble a little; if I am falsely accused of murder, my life is ruined.

He did confess to 14 murders and led the police to several body sites. A few "lucky" individuals survived his attacks and are witnesses at the trial.This was part of a plea deal that got him 60 years in prison which authorities at the time thought meant 60 years. The appeals court found him eligible for good time reducing his sentence to 20 years. He has said he will kill again if released. Serial killers don't usually stop. There is no doubt he is a serial killer.

I would vote to convict, regardless of the evidence. If jury nullification ever comes into play this is the case.

Interesting questions you pose Hugo, but I wonder if this thread shouldn't be in Personal Philosophy instead of Big Trials and Legal Cases because at the heart of the matter aren't you asking if we are willing to commit a small evil now to prevent a big evil later?

If Coral Eugene Watts doesn't deserve the death penalty nobody deserves it. He hunted women. He butched them. If he gets out somebody's daughter is going to suffer for it. He will kill again. Serial killers don't stop killing until they get too old and infirm, go to jail or die.

It is a misconception that juries find it easy to send a man to Death Row. It is a terrible burden of guilt to do so when the evidence is overwhelming. When you have the state of Michigan trying to clean up the mess the State of Texas left them by not putting this butcher to sleep it smacks of the triumph of what is expedient and the prevailing popular public sentiment over what is legal.

From the 60 Minutes program (which I watched in horror) what Michigan is trying to do seems like the longest of longshots.

Sometimes it isn't a matter of upholding the law, but serving the needsjustice. The justice that Watts has so far evaded sucessfully and his victims never received.

It would be nice if somehow Mr. Watts found himself out the segregation unit of the prison he probably usually resides in and among the ranks of the general population. Much like a self-cleaning oven. some ambitious convict might do us all a favor and take Watts out like the trash he is.

Would I feel bad about it? Do you feel bad when you flush the toliet?

If you were on the jury would you vote guilty even if the evidence did not support a guilty verdict?

Despite recent proposals to change, in the UK at the moment, prior criminal history is not admissable evidence in criminal trials. In theory at least, if this man were being tried here, he wouldn't be convicted, because his prior convictions would not be known about, so all the jury would have to go on would be the shaky eyewitness testimony. He'd probably be released.

I've never served on a jury, but I do know of several cases where an unpleasant man has been found guilty of a heinous murder, and only later on it was found that he didn't commit that particular murder. In the 1980s during an inner-city riot, a policeman named Blakelock was beaten to death in south London. Winston Silcott was tried and found guilty of his murder. Silcott was subsequently found guilty of another, unrelated murder. As with most police murders (and as with serial killers) the pressure to find someone guilty was very great at the time. Silcott always protested his innocence. After some time, he was given leave to appeal, and more modern forensic techniques proved that he couldn't have killed PC Blakelock.

This was brough to my mind only recently when new evidence led enquiries to dig up a garden near where PC Blakelock was killed, looking for a murder weapon. (I don't know if they found it).

While it's an important principle not to find people guilty of a crime they did not commit, even when they have committed other crimes, the most important pragmatic consideration here is that by doing so, the real perpetrator is still at large.

Now, in Watts's case, clearly he should be punished for the crimes he has committed. (Which leads me to ask, if there is such certainty over his guilt for the other murders, why isn't he being indicted for them instead of this "shaky" case? Surely his confession and prior known history must count for something? Or was the journalist in the posted article making up all his other crimes?)

But if this case is so weak, there are several possible interpretations. He may be a fiendishly clever master criminal who has covered his tracks - he'd certainly need to be to sustain his cover as a badly damaged borderline moron who kills clumsily because he enjoys it that way. The police may have been unlucky or incompetent in their evidence gathering.

Or he may just not have done this particular crime. I may be innocent of a crime without being innocent of any crime. Sure he's a bad person, but we don't find people guilty of murder for that. We find people guilty of this murder if they are proven beyond reasonable doubt in the courtroom where the trial takes place to have committed this murder. That murder is unlikely to be relevant.

Justice is not about good and evil, or even about innocence and guilt in general terms, it's about innocence and guilt of a particular crime.

I would have to say that, were I on a jury, I would not vote guilty unless the evidence alone pointed towards a guilty verdict. More than anything else, because I would hope that, if I were ever brought to trial for anything (whether I'd done it or not), I would want the jury trying me to do the same thing.

How could anyone vote guilty if the evidence does not support a guilty verdict?

I think we're coming close, as a country, in letting that happen though. DNA evidence was supposed to eliminate many of the innocents who have been incarcerated or put to death. Any DNA evidence in this case? Nothing but a questionable eye witness and a confession? All right, how questionable is the witness and how was the confession done?

If the confession was done without any pressure to do so from authorities, then I might let the guy have his time in prison or his execution. Seems he wants it under those circumstances. However, the real murderer might still be free.

If pressured to confess, then I'd not vote guilty. I'd throw it back at the authorities to present a real case, not a bunch of junk obtained via intimidation -- or even torture, as that word has lost a lot of it's meaning lately.