I'm in favor of it, but I would call for a higher standard of evidance, where the jury is certain beyond any doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Of course, this standard of guilt does not exist. I think it could. I'm sure OJ Simpson is guilty, but the evidence is not iron clad. If they had taken the Dallas cop killer into custody, I would say the evidence was iron clad for him. The evidence is iron clad in many cases. I think this would be a practical legal standard, but it's only an idea in my head, and I don't ever expect it to become a part of the law.
I believe in the death sentence, and think it should be used far more often, but without a way to prevent it being used in cases of circumstantial evidence, there are going to be some questionable convictions.
Of course, this standard of guilt does not exist. I think it could. I'm sure OJ Simpson is guilty, but the evidence is not iron clad. If they had taken the Dallas cop killer into custody, I would say the evidence was iron clad for him. The evidence is iron clad in many cases. I think this would be a practical legal standard, but it's only an idea in my head, and I don't ever expect it to become a part of the law.
I believe in the death sentence, and think it should be used far more often, but without a way to prevent it being used in cases of circumstantial evidence, there are going to be some questionable convictions.
I'm the tower of power, too sweet to be sour. I'm funky like a monkey. Sky's the limit and space is the place!
-Randy Savage