posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:01 PM
Having read the article, and viewed the video tape, along with the postings the following can be stated:
For starters, I would like to state that I could never sit on a jury which would hold a persons life in my hands. I would not want the
responsibility, as I would not have the strength to throw the switch or even push the button to end another’s life.
However, there are a few things that must be stated, one being that justice has to be blind.
No matter how terrible the crime, no matter how disgusting the individual, there has to be justice and the laws must reflect that, no matter what.
These laws that are on the books, are there to protect both the guilty and the innocent. If emotion over ride common sense, then we ourselves would
have a justice system like so many of the others in the world. While the justice and penetary system is flawed, it is still better than many other
places in the world. As a society, being a nation of laws, we must uphold those laws, and see them enforced, no matter what. It takes good
investigative skills and the burden on the prosecution team to prove to a jury, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilt, and that the
punishment fit’s the crime. All evidence needs to point that this one man did it, and did it with prior planning before such a verdict can be
given, along with sentencing. And there has to be an element of mercy, as there have been too many cases where someone who was innocent of a capital
crime was sent to jail and then put to death, for something they never did. In the article, the defense team did have a valid point, the jury has to
be impartial, and have no opinion for their client to have a fair trial. If it is unfair, then if he is guilty, then he could very well get off, as
some have before. The calls should be for a fair trial, an imparital jury, all rights upheld and the laws enforced, before the calls for blood.