(September 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm)Dotard Wrote: Allege witness coercion and the killer is redeemed?
A witness or two are inconsistant or recant so to hell with the rest of any witnesses testimony?
Since when does the definition of 'redemption' include not making an irreversible state sanctioned execution? By fuck, anyone who gets even a temporary stay of execution is redeemed, by your context.
Also, this irreversible action of execution prevents, by definition, re-evaluating the case with any meaningful consequences -- there is nothing well served in "Oh, we made a mistake. Our bad. Hope the dead guy's relatives feel vindicated."
Furthermore, witness testimony is considered suspect due to the fallibility and inconsistency of said witnesses. One would certainly find it difficult to make a rational decision if one's information sources are contradictory, influenced or have an axe to grind.
That's why we have forensic analysis -- to keep from the usual 'witch hunt' that people have a history of indulging in.
Also, I fail to see how a lack of hard evidence and the existence of questionable witness testimony passes the "shadow of a doubt" test for dispensing justice.
(September 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm)Dotard Wrote: I agree about special protections for the certain group of people known as murderers. Yes, fry them. The man face-shooted someone he should be 'put down' like the uncontrolled animal that he is.
It is my fond wish that those who often wish death for others without clearly establishing guilt in a rigorous and objective manner should have a chance at the former without the grace of the latter.
Thankfully, that is only a wish, unlike the callous actions and ideology embraced by certain kind folks.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
