The following statement is worth reading twise:-
" This court has never held that the constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a fair trial, BUT IS LARTER able to convince a court that he is actually innocent" Antonia Scalla ( Supreme Court)
Furthermore I am not claiming to be smarter than the Governor of Oaklahoma, who says:-
" We find none of the material to be credible evidence of Richard Gossips INNOCENCE"
The Rebel:- But surely that is the wrong way around? Isn't it criminal guilt that needs to be established " beyond a reasonable doubt?" Credible evidence of innocence is great, but doesn't taking the uncoraberated statement of a confessed killer as the only basis for a death sentence raise reasonable doubt?
The list of people who received the death sentence and were later esonerated would make a long thread. Now I am not saying Richard is innocent. Truth is I don't know. But public opinion spoke out yesterday, because people do know the " evidence" in this case is simply not suffient for capital punishment.
The Rebel.