Originally Posted by: R. ShackleferdYou mean where they present evidence and have testimonies and like have what is it called...oh yeah, a trial, no wait he already had one of those?

Yeah, I know what you mean though, I'm just being saracastic. But really, the "jury of your peers" should take that role seriously enough to begin with to where if there's even a shadow of a doubt, then a conviction isn't given. I'm not naive enough to think the system is flawless, but I do think we should follow through with something or not even bother. I understand there has to be an appeals process for good reason...I'm not sadistic. All within reason though, 24 years is excessive imo.

But again, like I said...I know there's worse fates than death, so I kinda feel he'd be getting it easy comparitively.
And does anyone else find it kind of amusing that his biggest supporters are Snoop Dogg, the "Rev" Jesse Jackson, and Susan Sarandon?

you are right but there's been a few cases where they've executed innocent men or some men have actually been found innocent.

and it actually has taken that many years because of advances in DNA evidence and other such technology that wasn't available 20+ years ago.

so i would say 24 years isn't excessive if it means making sure he isn't guilty....but we're getting off topic right now...this is more the implications of his execution and whether or not his deeds later in life make him an asset to society where his execution would be a detriment rather than a positive.

is vengence worth it if it means taking out someone who is prooving a value to society after actually being reformed (jail actually doing what it's supposed to? wow!**)




**that is, if you believe jail is about reform and not simply punishment for the sake of punishment and no lesson or understanding. but that's yet another subject...which i guess this all goes hand in hand since this one topic is bringing out all these other tangents that do, in fact, impact how this should go.


ps, 9 days left till we find out.