Wait until they try the woman who just smothered her kids and rolled the car into a lake. The circus is going to be unbelievable and all you’re going to hear from dawn till dusk is “Susan Smith, Susan Smith!”
I mean, yeah, seriously…she only killed one person. Odds are she probably won’t kill another one—why go to the expense of putting her in prison for a fluke? This could be better served with asimple fine to cover the investigation.
Hey, “There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins…whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.”-Brigham Young
And I’m already a sci-fi hack, so I’ve got that in my official qualifications for convincing potential cultists of damnfool ideas.
I read some more on this case and it does seem that the case against this woman is not strong enough. Go Google it. There’s a lot of stuff that I would guess a smart lawyer could put enough doubt into a jury’s head. Even I started to wonder a bit.
Also women who commit crimes against kids don’t have it easy in prison either.
Yes. But the acquittal was due to jury nullification, many people doubt that he is factually innocent, and the civil judgment against him served a similar purpose to a fine.