Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another example of p*ss poor job by the prosecution jury and low IQ jurors. If some had their way this guy would have been dead for years. While I generally don't have sympathy for murders, you need to actually make sure you have the right person.
If some had their way this guy would have been dead for years.
Indeed. Perhaps even dead forever.
And you're right. The simple fact that no legal system is flawless should be enough to make people think twice about capital punishment. That and the cost.
Yeah, well after the execution the victims will still be just as dead. I can see why someone who's family was murdered might want to see the murderer hang, to say the least. I don't think that's a good enough reason for the government to execute someone, though. And if you, a stranger, feels the guy deserves it, so what? Say your neighbour doesn't: why should you get your way and he not his?
But none of that matters as much as avoiding the possibility of executing the wrong person. It's possible to make amends for wrongfully imprisoning someone; wrongfully executing someone, not so much.
I am against the death penalty also but I'm not sure how that is applicable here. I'm not sure how this falls on the jury either. If two people lied there is no way for a jury to know their testimony was a lie.
If two people say person A did it and person A says he didn't it doesn't make you stupid to believe the two over the one.
I am against the death penalty also but I'm not sure how that is applicable here. I'm not sure how this falls on the jury either. If two people lied there is no way for a jury to know their testimony was a lie.
If two people say person A did it and person A says he didn't it doesn't make you stupid to believe the two over the one.
The jury is partially responsible because they're suppose to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The word of a convicted felon should not be valid reason alone to convict. Heck, the word of the Pope should not be reason alone to convict. There was no other evidence against this guy, just the "word" of two individuals.
The jury is partially responsible because they're suppose to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The word of a convicted felon should not be valid reason alone to convict. Heck, the word of the Pope should not be reason alone to convict. There was no other evidence against this guy, just the "word" of two individuals.
since the guy was tens years in on a forty year sentence, and the guy that lied on the stand wasnt convicted of anything until 2005, then the jury wouldnt know he was going to be convicted of a felony, and he likely wasnt convicted previously as the article didnt mention any convictions until 2005, a full two years AFTER the trial. and eyewitness testimony is often times ALL the prosecution has, perhaps with other circumstantial evidence as well. but since we were not at the trial, nor privy to any of the evidence, all we have is the news story which is sketchy as best regarding the evidence.
as for teh death penalty itself, many convicts are on death row for twenty years before their actual execution date rolls around, and often times that date is pushed back because of various appeals, attempts at commutation, etc. so he could have been given the death penalty, and would still be alive today to be looking forward to release.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.