Originally Posted by xjoe3x

If you want a justice system, which I do, you must except that things like this will happen. It is a pity, but oh well. It does not mean imprisonment is wrong, just that we are not perfect. Same goes for the death penalty, but that is a different thread. One that has been done many times.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

I have to say that I am basically in favor of the death penalty, despite stories like this one.

What I'm not so keen on, is the jury system. If my life and freedom is on the line, I want professionals well versed in the law deciding things, not twelve yokels, with nothing better to do, who get dazzled and confused by glib lawyers, and can't even ask questions. Look at the doofuses serving on the OJ trial.

DNA test them all, I say, absolutely. But why bother having rules if society isn't willing to enforce them consistently?

Originally Posted by malrenalds

So you are willing to let innocent people die for vengeance?

Originally Posted by diuretic

OJ was acquitted. Better a dodgy acquittal than a dodgy conviction, especially when the death penalty is at the end of it. The jury is a means of ensuring that the state doesn't get its judges to convict those it wants convicted. I'd always take a jury trial over trial before judge alone (an option in my jurisdiction). Juries can smell it when there's a fit-up by the prosecution. They know it could be any one of them standing in the dock.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

I admire your faith.

Originally Posted by diuretic

It's not blind faith, it's informed by experience. I have a realistic view of the criminal justice system.

Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant

I take the judge over the jury, because the jury are more likely to be swayed by emotional nonsense.

Originally Posted by Michael

How do you apologize to someone after taking 27 years of his life away?