According to his lawyer, Notorious drug cartel kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán has promised not to kill any of the jurors from his upcoming New York trial. This response comes after El Chapo's prosecutors wanted to impanel an "anonymous" and "partially sequestered jury." They also asked for the jury to be protected by armed guards, citing El Chapo's history of using violence and other threats trying to silence witnesses in the past. El Chapo's lawyer has requested not to keep the jury anonymous and protected, saying that this would "create the extremely unfair impression that he is a dangerous person from whom the jury must be protected.”
Opinion:
If the jurors were not kept anonymous and I was on that jury, I'd be doing anything to get off. El Chapo said he wouldn't kill the jurors, but what about the jurors' families, friends, and other loved ones? I'd say something like, "out of fear for my life, I will vote not guilty no matter the facts presented to me."
How harsh should El Chapo's sentence be? Do you think he will eventually walk free?
http://www.newsweek.com/el-chapo-promises-not-kill-any-jurors-upcoming-federal-trial-lawyer-says-791716
14 comments:
Any notion that El Chapo deserves the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous. He has made a name for himself as being violent and cruel. Also, I'm no expert, but it's usually a bad idea to trust a criminal, especially one who has escaped from prison multiple times.
I think that the jury should be anonymous because he is a dangerous person. Although his lawyer doesn't want him to feel that way, he hasn't proved that he is not dangerous. If anything, he proved the exact opposite and I think that actions speak louder than words. It's better to take precautions then to regret it later.
I also would be terrified if I was chosen to be apart of the jury. Drug cartels are highly dangerous people and in reality, they will take whatever actions necessary in order for their well-being and reputation to remain in tact. I think the jurors do need to be protected but since this is likely to piss of El Chapo, the government needs to handle this situation VERY carefully/wisely in order to ensure the safety of the jurors and their families. Although, as harsh as his sentencing turns out... it's likely that he will escape again. I mean he's done it multiple times previously and being as powerful as he is, I don't know if there is anything that will ever stop him. Possibly not even death since he has a whole army behind him.
think the jury should be kept anonymous for their safety. Like other people have said, there is no reason to trust el Chapo when it comes to safety of those who could either help him, or help bring him down. Also I think if el Chapo had no escaped three times from prison and had previously pleaded guilty to his crimes he could have been able to eventually walk free, but since he didn't do that I think he'll probably spend the rest of his life in prison.
I also agree that the jury should be kept anonymous for their safety because in this case, anything could happen. I'm not sure what will happen to him especially because of his past trials, everything usually works out his way. I still would never trust a criminal or anyone who is known to be as dangerous as him.
I agree that it would make the jurors more comfortable if they were anonymous, but, with all of the controversy surrounding El Chapo, I believe that if anything were to happen to any of the jurors or their family, he would be the first suspect. He would be who everyone believes did the crime, and it would be very suspicious. Nonetheless, I would definitely not want to be present on that panel, just knowing Chapo's reputation.
I totally agree that it would be scary to serve on that jury. As the commenters above said, its clear that with Chapo's violent nature and background, any juror would be scared and in a dangerous position. I think that the jury should absolutely be anonymous because if they serve with the fear of being in danger, they will clearly present an inaccurate statement. As for Chapo's sentence, I think that he should be detained as long as possible and there should be much more security around him because he seems to have escaped prison an unacceptable amount of times.
I'm not sure why this is even a discussion. How are we going to take this guy's word? He only wants to know the jury so he can kill them or force them to say he is not guilty. I really can't see any other reason. People like him aren't just going to become good people once they get caught so I hope that whoever is in charge is sensible and makes the jury anonymous.
Yea I would never want to be on that jury, and it seems crazy to even consider giving El Chapo such a request because everyone knows just how dangerous he is anyway. So the lawyers argument is rather silly, especially because the jurors themselves understand that if not protected the vote they cast could mean the difference between life and death. This being said it is highly unlikely that El Chapo will ever be a free man again, assuming the jurors will be protected and anonymous. Also based on what he has done in the past I think his sentence will likely be pretty harsh, reflecting how many peoples lives he is responsible for taking and ruining.
I find it interesting that El Chapo's lawyer states that keeping the jury anonymous creates an "unfair" impression that he is dangerous, because based on his history that seems like a completely fair judgment. If the jurors were in fear of their safety, they would not be able to clearly judge the trial. I do not believe he will be able to walk free and his sentence should be life without parole or 30+ years in prison.
It seems like there is a threat despite what the lawyer says simply based on past behavior of El Chapo. Personally, I would agree that I would not sit on that jury if my identity was not protected. We've seen his ability to get out of prison in the past, as well as his inclination towards violence.
I also think that the jury should be kept anonymous. I feel like El Chapo's lawyer's claim that having an anonymous jury makes the trial unfair should be ignored as the safety of the jury should take priority especially considering El Chapo's history.
I think it is interesting that everyone here seems unwilling to give El Chapo the benefit of the doubt, while many here would give the benefit of the doubt to anyone that is simply just not as notorious. Is El Chapo's potential to kill a judge that much more frightening than another 9-11 attack or more murders by M-13 members (that Trump talked about in his State of the Union speech)? Take the southern border for an example and refugees and Middle Eastern immigration for another. From previous posts on this blog, it seems evident to me that most people give all those other groups the benefit of the doubt, and for some reason someone who has been deported 4 times already can still be captured, released, and allowed to return again and kill a woman with little consequence, but El Chapo cannot be given a fair trial process. I do think the jurors should be protected, but I believe in safety in all of the examples I have mentioned. I think there needs to be some consistency in the approach to trusting groups/people that have done wrong in the past, and consistency in the debate between safety and liberty, which is not there for many of the commenting people above.
I completely disagree with Michael. There is a distinct difference between trusting a drug kingpin who is known to be responsible for trafficking and killing dozens of people and trusting "groups who have done something wrong in the past." The basic premise of this claim is false. Labeling someone as a threat due to their belonging to a racial group is completely without precedence, and it is unfair to compare someone who has merely entered the country illegally to a drug lord. Sure, there will be criminals and bad eggs in any group (including people who live in our own country), but collective punishment is wholly unfair. Finally getting to extradite El Chapo is a big deal, and while it is important to provide him with a fair trial, there is no impression of violence that would be "created" by protecting the jury; the impression is already there. The fact that El Chapo felt the need to promise not to kill any jurors in the first place is enough to reinforce that he is a threat.
Post a Comment