The "question" was rhetorical and quite lame.<quoted text>
You do know what a question mark is for, correct? That question mark means I was asking a question, nothing else. I should have known better than to ask you. My bad.
Mr. Play Justice had essentially stated that the practice of permitting juries to reach a verdict on lesser included charges is not "right".
Faced with the reality of the doctrine of lesser included offenses, which is nearly universally applied in this country, he whined, "But lesser charges are not always allowed to be added, are they?"
Sorry Mr. Play Justice, the straw you were grasping has broken. The doctrine that a jury should be given the proper range of possible verdicts is settled law. Get over it.
Prime example of "moving the goal posts".
Mr. Play Justice has essentially stated that the practice of permitting juries to reach a verdict on lesser included charges is not "right".
Now he moves the goal post, and quite ineffectually.
And because sometimes courts do not allow instruction of the jury on lesser included offenses **some of the time** that means the practice is improper **all of the time**?
What is the rational basis for that premise?
"[I]t is settled that a jury should be given the entire range of possible verdicts in a case in which the evidence warrants the giving of the lesser included offenses,[and] it follows that defenses that are supported by a reasonable construction of the evidence should be given along with those same lesser charges." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 588 (1990).
But the Play Justice disagrees (because of the Zimmerman case, which he will vehemently deny.)