I disagree with this because the role of a jury is to determine guilt. If what you propose were the case it may sway someone to vote not guilty even when it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person is guilty simply because they don't want to execute the sentence. I think that would be a miscarriage of justice. The jury's disposition to the punishment is irrelevant when determining guilt unless they're doing jury nullification, then they're just not following the law but for a different reason.
Besides, isn't it ultimately the Judge who determines the sentence, not the jury? Maybe it varies on the type of case and such but my point is the same.
I don't see any logical reasoning as to why someone who is determining guilt should have to be the one who executes the sentence. It's almost as if you're trying to punish the judge / jury for making a decision of guilty. It wouldn't have any positive impact that I can see and only negative ones.
I'd say this was consensual install. Had it been legitimate non-consensual install, the computer has a way to prevent itself being impregnated with an open source operating system if the install was not consensual.
Give the guy a break, it's probably still his first day! To accomplish all of that, he probably walked in the door a month ago and since then he hasn't seen the light of day, walked outside, slept, or even eaten.
It's a cry for help, don't mock the poor guy! Somebody, get this man a pizza and some ambien!
Back in college when we moved into our apartments, it was unusually cold for September in Michigan and they hadn't switched over from the A/C in the building yet. We closed the door in our bedroom and plugged in a couple PC's. Kept it pretty warm.
It also reminds me of living at my parents house. I had to keep my door open because if I closed it, the room would heat up pretty good regardless of the time of year.