The question of if he is guilty or not will be decided in court, what disturbs me is the association with his veterans status. The fact the media almost never publishes anything veterans do that is positive, but always emphasizes the negatives, makes one question their (the media's) integrity.
Other than Internet forums and sometimes the local news sources where can one obtain an unbiased reporting of facts?
In answer to my question there is none.
> Why would it be necessary for the other sovereign states of this Union involved to insist upon their "right" to pursue capital cases against either of the accused, when a "successful" prosecution in the first trial would be more than sufficient to address society's demand for justice?
Possibly for those elected officials in the respective states to justify their jobs, and for the lawyers that will be involved to get their piece of the pie. It is all a waste of money if the first state convicts the accused, and hands down a life / or death sentence.
Why ship him from state to state and go through the sham of a trial, if not to support all those court related employees, and prision officials that will have to transport him. Job security, and more tax dollars wasted. (not to include the associated media circus) Once he is convicted once, and a death sentence is carried out does it really matter if he is sentenced to additional death sentences?
And what purpose does it serve to report on his veterans status?
__________________
I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything,
but I can do something. And because I cannot do
everything, I will not refuse to do the something that
I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should
do, By the grace of God, I will do. -Edward Everett Hale
|