Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
Not really, the judge is required to give instructions laying out exaclty what is expected of the jurors and that the prosecution must have demonstrated BARD that each element of the crime(s) were commited by the def. They have not shown that. They have not linked him with the crime. he should not be convicted. AND - convicting him on any other basis is just wrong and undermines the integrity of the legal system. It is tantamount to saying he had an affair so he is a sinner and he deserves the death penalty for that, so we will convict him for that even though that is not the issue in this trial. Granted that is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point 
I gues it is just a pet peeve of mine when people think that someone should be convicted by something other than the law. The law is there to protect us and many of the alternatives to the reasonable doubt standard are babaric. |
Unga bunga. Seriously though, I do see your point. I am just frustrated that you cannot convict someone just because it is clear that he committed the crime. And honestly I have not followed the case closely enough to know what the jury has been shown. I do think that sometimes people have trouble understanding that reasonable doubt does not mean that you have no doubt in your mind that the person committed the crime.