zlacker

I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions for people who can get a shred of empathy from a jury. It's easy to proclaim that someone is a murderer when they're just a symbol on a screen and you're powerless. But being handed the reigns to their life and told to weigh the situation closely is a completely different experience.

Of course juries also require a unanimous agreement, and there is always the bootlicking contingent. Jury nullification is great anti-state concept in general, but often ends up used to remove accountability for sub-state power structures.

>>mindsl+(OP)
> I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions

Short answer: Yes, both today and historically, especially when we meted out more brutal punishments. Literature on the history of jury nullification invariably points this out.

However, juror leniency has waned as jury pools have become increasingly composed of people who don't live in the same neighborhoods or socio-economic conditions as the defendants and therefore lack a more realistic perspective of the risks and benefits of leniency rather than being driven by fear. See, generally, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William Stuntz.