Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Sallow, Sep 22, 2011.
Not in my opinion. I think there should incontrovertible evidence before the death penalty is given.
If you gunned down a man or woman in public before hundreds of people who didn't know each other, thus mitigating conflicts of interest, then yes, it's enough to convict. And, depending on juristiction, execute the convicted.
The eyewitness testimony of one person? No, there's too many variables to contend with.
I think it depends how many witnesses and if their story matches.
No. It is unreliable.
I do not advocate condemning a person to death solely on testimony of one eyewitness. If an eyewitness is consistent and trustworthy, and there is solid evidence to corroborate eyewitness' story, then so be it.
I am in Texas and tired of seeing people exonerated after years on death row for crimes DNA proves they never committed. Just imagine what injustice would have been done to these people and humankind had DNA not been used on these cases.
When there is any doubt on evidence on a case, I say: Put the death penalty away! No one should be executed on any case where there exists doubt.
This is the first decent post from you in a while.
Purely eyewitness testimony is never accurate enough. There must be more.
Not sure what class it was..but we had a "play" of sorts where a couple of people disrupted what was going on with an "incident'. When it was done..we were all told to make notes on it..and hand them up front.
What people recollected was astonishing. And everyone had a different take on it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCZ9TguVOIA]Rashomon Trailer (Akira Kurosawa, 1950) - YouTube[/ame]
What a moronic question.
Separate names with a comma.