In my gut, I think that he's guilty. But my gut isn't enough of a reason to convict a man of murder, and it's certainly not enough of a reason to sentence someone to die. Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is enough of a reason to convict a man of murder, but in my opinion, it's not enough of a reason to sentence someone to die.
I personally don't support the death penalty, and I wish it weren't on the books, but that's another debate entirely. As long as it is the law, I believe that it needs to be treated very carefully. This is the ultimate penalty, here, and there should be absolutely no doubt that the person is guilty. There should be hard and fast evidence: DNA, witnesses, etc. If there's even the slightest chance that something could have been overlooked, that the defendant was wrongly convicted, then he should be sentenced to life in prison.
__________________
History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Mark Twain
|