Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (74318)	9/10/2003 4:33:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I think where a prosecutor is seeking the death penalty he or she has a special duty to be very, very sure the evidence is clear and compelling. Obviously they had no DNA evidence to convict him. They may have had eyewitness testimony that he was the man, but eyewitness testimony, particularly in stressful situations, can be inaccurate, and can be created by improper police or prosecutorial actions. (It has been proved that it is possible to create memories of things that never happened.) I agree, we don't know the facts, and it's theoretically possible that he had a really strong clear case that was simply wrong. But it's hard to imagine what that case might consist of if the guy really had nothing to do with the crime.