d in the U.S. that effects the way a trial is run when dealing with death penalty cases. Under a new bill passed by the House of Representatives, trial judges became the new decision-makers in whether a convicted murderer should be sentenced to death or not. Prior to this bill's passage, the decision of whether the convict would live or be sentenced to death was made by a panel of three judges. A previous 1995 legislature stripped the death penalty decisions from twelve-person juries and gave it to the trio of experienced judges. Yet, that method has been criticized lately because in two instances, a judge from outside the district voted for life-in-prison sentences in heinous murder cases. Mr. McPherson supported having the trial judges decide the cases because they are elected professionals and are accountable to people. He also said that method would most likely shorten the time it takes to try a death-penalty case. In my previous essay, it was said that capital punishment trials can linger on and take years. With this new and immediate way of giving a sentence, time spent for each trial can be cut down by a lot. And the truth is, "People lie. They've derailed the death penalty," McPherson said, referring to cases in which jurors said during selection that they could impose a death sentence but later said they could not. This just shows that your everyday average U.S. citizen can have some great difficulty with taking on the task of deciding whether a man should walk or take the chair. Rep. Don Lee, of Littleton, CO unsuccessfully tried to amend the bill to allow the jury to make a recommendation on life or death, and then the judge would make the final decision. Only ten jurors would have to agree, and the judge could reject their recommendation, but the judge then would have to issue a written explanation as to why he denied it. The amending of this new bill to a juror/judge combined decision allows a professional leader ...
