posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 04:26 PM
Originally posted by DerekJR321
Didn't she have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt? So if there was any doubt, she would receive the verdict she did.
bottom line. There was a reasonable doubt perceived by the jury.
Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Someone has gotten away with murdering a two year old child.
That may indeed be true. But the legal system will never make 100% perfect
decisions in every case. So it's setup such that when an error occurs, it's more likely that a guilty person will go free, than an innocent person
will be put in jail. As much as we don't like to see guilty people go free, I hope we can agree that sending innocent people to jail or death is a
worse outcome. I'm not saying she was innocent, just that her guilt wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think the legal system worked. They couldn't prove her guilt. That means she's innocent in the eyes of the law. She may still have done it, but
they couldn't prove it.
I'd much rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person convicted.
from what little I know of the trial, I think it worked the way
it's supposed to work. Of course we don't want guilty people to go free, but we will make errors and when we do, we absolutely must err in this
manner. The alternative of sentencing innocent people to death is much worse, and yes, we have done that, at least 17 times! Are we bad?
Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted
in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.