Guilty In Name Only

He is guilty and should be executed for his despicable crime. However, in America being guilty is not enough, the prosecution has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I know that he shouldn't be convicted; all of the evidence requires conjecture and the ability to connect A-C. What about step B?

I am certain that the trial will end in a hung jury, requiring another long and drawn out judiciary process. Odds are good that the prosecution will learn from their mistakes and load the jury with single mothers, insuring a unanimous victory. I truly doubt that they will come up with any new evidence or ever prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Scott Peterson is guilty.

I don't mind that a travesty of justice is taking place, because, like I said earlier, he is guilty. Nonetheless, if a guilty man is convicted because of emotion and not fact, does that not bode ill for the innocent man facing a similar situation?

If I had my way, we would scrap the current jury system and replace it with professional jury pools, people who are educated in the law and paid to decide the fate of their fellow citizens, or we could just rely on those who currently fit that bill: Judges. I know that a substantial number of judges are crazy, but I will take delusional tyranny over twelve stupid tyrants any day of the week

Go to Hell