Farmboy wrote: I'm all about fairness in the judicial system. Any time there is any question as to guilt or innocence, there should be a full trial (the Zimmerman case being an example .... since the prosecutor saw fit to charge him, in the face of overwhelming evidence of his innocence). If the offender is caught red handed though ... why waste the valuable resources of innocent citizens, because of this thug's behavior? Makes no sense.
I completely agree, Farm. If there is any doubt about guilt, a full trial is absolutely warranted. Likewise, in cases where there are witnesses galore, and the entire crime is videotaped, and the perpetrator freely admits to his guilt, justice should be quickly dispensed.
Our right to a fair trial by a jury of our peers is one of our fundamental rights and should never be impeded, but the process should be greatly expedited in cases with overwhelming evidence.
As you know, some people are completely incorrigible and without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Remember that monster, Davis, from California? He was a multiple sex-offender. They let him out of prison early and he went directly to little Polly Klass' bedroom, where he abducted her, raped her, and brutally killed her. The problem of violent repeat offenders is one that should never happen. If a violent person is hurting innocent people, should we give him a second chance? I say no. Put the bastards down before he puts one of us down, or even worse, before he hurts someone we love down. It's time for America to toughen up and enforce the damned law. |
