My "favorite" case was the Louisiana case where a perv had abducted and molested a young boy. When authorities caught the perv they returned him by air and the media covered the return at the airport. The boy's father was at a pay phone in the corridor pretending to be on the phone. When the cops and the perv passed, the father turned and sent the perv to hell with a well-placed shot. The whole thing was even caught on video by the media. Verdict: Not Guilty.
I remember that case very well. I would vote to convict in both instances. The systems sucks sometimes, but I'd rather have one like ours than one where people go around meting out justice as they see fit.
The media often hypes cases without bothering to report all the facts, (and sometimes they don't HAVE all the facts!) and for that simple reason, I would at least let the system do it's job. It's called the presumption of innocence, in case you've forgotten.
FWIW, many of those creeps that end up charged with killing a child usually end up in prison or death row. Prosecuters don't like child killers any more than the rest of us, and try to have all their ducks in a row when the trial comes around.
I can't imagine what my reaction would be if someone had abducted and killed my child, or had otherwise acted in a manner which resulted in death for my child, but I believe in justice, and not at the hands of my neighbors. We don't always get it in the system, but I'd rather do that than have the blood of someone else on my hands.
How would you feel if it turned out that the "perp" hadn't really done it? Say someone else gets caught doing something similar and they find out through DNA testing that THIS guy, rather than the one who was killed, is responsible? I couldn't live with myself. Better to roll the dice with a jury, than pull the trigger, since you can't take the bullet back if you're wrong.