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.
I always wonder how in the world an attorney could sit there and seriously defend a guy like this when it's a clear cut case?
"Defense" doesn't always involve claims of innocence. Sometimes the best a defense lawyer can do is call for a more lenient sentence, such as life in prison vs. death.
In a clear cut case like this, why even bother with a trial? Just eliminate the thug. Probably comes from a long line of inbred and diseased thugs.
RIP to the kid and a speedy recovery to the mom.
Because we do not practice tribal vengeance. We have a system that provides a trial for every accused person. Our system should protect a falsely accused person, but it will not protect an convicted murderer.
The crime is horrible. If they have the right person, and it sounds like they do, he deserves full punishment after lawful conviction.
The jury can deliver a verdict of Guilty or Non Guilty. The former means the prosecution proved their case and the latter means the prosecution did not prove their case. The latter verdict of Not Guilty does not mean the accused was innocent, only that the jury did not feel that the prosecution provided enough evidence to prove the accused (defendant) was guilty of the crime.
The jury can deliver a verdict of Guilty or Non Guilty. The former means the prosecution proved their case and the latter means the prosecution did not prove their case. The latter verdict of Not Guilty does not mean the accused was innocent, only that the jury did not feel that the prosecution provided enough evidence to prove the accused (defendant) was guilty of the crime.
That’s what happened with Casey Anthony. The jury knew she killed her, but the prosecutor overshot by charging her with pre-meditated murder rather than murder 2 or manslaughter. The pre-meditation part was the part they couldn’t prove but it left the jury with no choice except to find her not guilty.
Obviously it is terrible what happened to them, but I have to say, I agree with you, I read thru alot of comments on crime stories and what Ive seen is so many people automatically convict the person once they hear an allegation, especially if a child is involved, or its a sex related crime, people want to bypass the courts and just kill them on the spot, its really scary so many people are like this today, and whats strange, these same people probably celebrate 4th of July and claim to be good patriotic american citizens at the same time! LOL
People have largely forgotten 'assume innocence until PROVEN guilty in a court of law', and really its the exact opposite, once the allegation is made, its up to them to prove they are innocent, how in the world did it get like this? When did people start siding with authority over their fellow citizens?
Im surprised public executions have not been brought back yet, Im sure they would be very popular in the times we live in, or better yet, bring back the old ' coliseum games', so the public can watch someone be killed or tortured for something they allegedly did.
Did you read the actual article? There is no "allegedly" about it.....the murderer admitted what he had done.
Didn't you learn the answer to that in Civics class?
I repeatedly hear comments on this forum like:
1. Why would a lawyer defend a guilty person?
2. Why do we need a trial when someone is obviously guilty?
3. What "rights" does a murderer have?
I've regrettably concluded that either civics is no longer taught in the public schools or more likely that the kids are tuning it out when it is taught and thinking about electronic games instead.
Seriously though, ignorance about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a serious societal problem. I remember one discussion here months ago where an accused shoplifter was tackled and badly injured by a store employee who was subsequently fired by the store. Half the people responding seemed to understand that just because someone may have taken a $5 item from the store that they didn't serve to be permanently injured as a result. The other half though were violently angry that the store had fired this employee. They just couldn't seem to get the notion that we can't appoint ourselves "judge, jury, and executioner" when we believe we observe criminal misconduct.
Frankly, the fact that in 2020 there are significant percentages of the population that don't accept the idea that people have to be tried in a court of law and convicted of a crime before they are considered guilty is terrifying. Gut reaction seems to prevail over reason for a large chunk of the population. The implications for not only criminal justice, but civic affairs in general are just staggering.
2. Why do we need a trial when someone is obviously guilty?
3. What "rights" does a murderer have?
I've regrettably concluded that either civics is no longer taught in the public schools or more likely that the kids are tuning it out when it is taught and thinking about electronic games instead.
Seriously though, ignorance about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a serious societal problem. I remember one discussion here months ago where an accused shoplifter was tackled and badly injured by a store employee who was subsequently fired by the store. Half the people responding seemed to understand that just because someone may have taken a $5 item from the store that they didn't serve to be permanently injured as a result. The other half though were violently angry that the store had fired this employee. They just couldn't seem to get the notion that we can't appoint ourselves "judge, jury, and executioner" when we believe we observe criminal misconduct.
Frankly, the fact that in 2020 there are significant percentages of the population that don't accept the idea that people have to be tried in a court of law and convicted of a crime before they are considered guilty is terrifying. Gut reaction seems to prevail over reason for a large chunk of the population. The implications for not only criminal justice, but civic affairs in general are just staggering.
Yet I agree with you totally. “We don’t need no stinkin” Constitution!!” crowd when it comes to our justice system yet try to enact any gun control and suddenly the Constitution was brought down from the mountain by Moses himself. This year I realized just how many have no concept what the Constitution actually says and means when anti-maskers tried to claim it was somehow a violation of their First Amendment rights.
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.
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.
