[Veto!]

If I were on the jury, I'd have to vote for life, given the lack of evidence. I hate Scott, but could not vote for death.

[Terpfen]

That's the thing about voting for a life sentence: the prisoners are going to kill him sooner than the state would if he got the death penalty. It'll take about a decade for all of his appeals to run dry. It would take about 2 months for him to get murdered when a guard just happened to be looking the other way.

[BykrBayb]

In order to vote for life because of the lack of evidence, you would have also had to vote guilty despite the lack of evidence.

Does anyone here understand that it's wrong to send a man to prison for life because you don't think he's guilty? If he's guilty, he gets the death penalty. If he's innocent, he gets life. Does this really make sense?

[Technical Editor]

If I were on the jury, I'd have to vote for life, given the lack of evidence. I hate Scott, but could not vote for death.

It is inconceivable to me that anyone who was not guilty would have done what he did afterward.