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.
What you say makes sense, but doesn't change my mind. I would still have acquitted the guy. In fact, I admire the father's courage. I know that makes me a not so good person, but I am what I am. And twelve folks in Louisiana agreed with me.