Sorry Scott, you're a lawyer, it comes with ESQ because of all the lawyers out there that don't up hold morals/law unfortunately
and I would agree with that, jsut like I would with any profession. cases like this are hard to look at while holding to dertain principles. the justice system has been and must be a cold, blind, machine.
My only point was that (law lecture coming) every person accused of a crime has a right to trial by jury. I know some of you disagree, but the answer is to amend the Consitution. Furthermore, the assertion that "she admitted it so she doesn't deserve due process is really scary to me. In this case, she admitted to it because she did it...
however, the number os false confessions given in astounding (even though one is too many). morally, she maybe didn't deserve all the rights and stuff to some of you, and I get that. the problem is that there is no workable solution to this. to curb rights like hers is impossible to do without impacting other, more innocent folks.
There is talk lately of doing away with the insanity defense altogether, which is an interesting discussion, and would take care of alot of these types of results.
oh, her husband should be on trial. WHY IS HE NOT??? they could tag him for at least a 3rd degree felony. that bastard was mentally well and directly contributed to this horrific experience.
Wasch:
I did not post this as any sort of bash on the system or her lawyers.
I know, and I wasn't adressing you.
***I likely know where this discussion is headed, and I will grtacefully bow out of this thead.
good night.