Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 13 2004, 05:23 PM
I'm in favour of the death penalty but, honestly, I'm surprised it was applied to a case like this where the prosecution case is virtually entirely circumstantial.
I don't have a big problem with the conviction because I THINK he did it . . . . . but this could be one of those cases where someone else comes out of the woodwork and says they did it 20 years later. Sending him to prison is one thing but I'd feel a lot better about the death penalty if there were witnesses, fingerprints on a murder weapon, etc, something that definitively says: "There's no doubt about it. This guy did it." Then I'm all for the death penalty in this case. But that element is missing. In fact, I was a little surprised he was even convicted.
There were about 16,000 murders in the USA in 2002.
Cowperson
|
I completely agree... to a point :P
I have no problem putting murderers to death, but the fact is that juries are soooo bad about actually applying the "truth beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Too often juries make an early judgement about the accused, interpret the evidence to try to justify that judgement, and then convict unless the defense can prove to them that they were wrong.
That just happens way too often for me to feel comfortable when people are executed, since the vast majority of the time you don't know whether there was DNA evidence or just some suspicious circumstances.
I'm for
a death penalty, but only if
I get to see the evidence and decide whether it's conclusive enough B)