baltimoresun.com
12:30 PM EST, January 15, 2012
It's pointless to waste of taxpayer dollars on a death-penalty
case in which the defendant is already serving a sentence of
life-plus-15 years for murder. (You have to be fucking KIDDING ME! Jeez, what some state's attorneys won't do to get a conviction!)
Regarding your article about the
trial of a prisoner accused of killing a corrections officer, I doubt
the jury can be impartial toward a defendant who has already been
convicted of murder ("Trial opens in prison officer's killing," Jan.
12).
Just because the prosecutor has DNA evidence, one of the
requirements for seeking the death penalty under the change in state law
passed in 2009, doesn't mean the death penalty should be sought. The
prosecutor also intends to present eyewitness testimonies from
prisoners.
But how reliable are prisoners as witnesses? (Eye-witness testimony is the most flawed and least reliable of all testimony!) Perhaps
they only agreed to testify in order to lessen their own sentences.
Unreliable eyewitness testimony has put innocent men on death row.
The
prosecutors shouldn't have to rely on eyewitness testimony anyway,
since the incident occurred at a corrections facility where footage of
the incident could easily have been captured on video.
Justice
must be done in the murder of Officer David McGuinn. But it seems like a
waste of taxpayer dollars to be spend them on appeals of a
death-penalty case in which the defendant is already serving a sentence
of life-plus-15 years for murder.
Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun
No comments:
Post a Comment