If 9/10 people with a degree would agree with something that can be statistically disproven (white people have been convicted in this country and countries all around Europe long before non-whites could even sit on a jury) then that says more about the worthlessness of a college degree than it does about anything else.
Its about the jurors, not the prosecutors. There was no motive and it was all speculation. If you were put on a jury and it was eligible for the death penalty, would you be more willing to convict if it was 30 years vs death? There could have been jurors who were willing to convict, but felt the option of a dealth penalty was too much.
Your theory might've been true if first degree murder was the only charge. She also had the aggravated manslaughter charge slapped on, which she was also found unguilty. This really baffled me.
they found her inncocent of murder, but can she also be brought up on negligence charges? this is just all too wrong.
I do have one. It seems I may have misunderstood your point though. Are you saying she got off because of a white jury? Implying that white people don't convict other white people?
They had the option of a lesser included charge that they also acquitted on. However, no, the sentence wouldn't weigh into my decision to convict and it's a shame that you think it should. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't be based on the severity of the punishment. If the punishment isn't so harsh it's OK if we haven't proven guilt?
but there is a dead baby after all...there was negligence in some way, shape or form somewhere. I know what you mean though in that it's not provable, this just sucks all the way around and is wrong on so many levels. Hard to beleive these redneck morons managed to pull off a unprovable crime.
Eh... Do you believe that children only die as a result of CRIMINAL negligence? I agree it sucks. I believe she did it and that she got away with murder.
