We can't complain and debate regardign this topic. I don't see what would be wrogn with that.

theoretically you would not have that extra crap and you would not kill innocent people. But yes in reality and in the current US system you are correct.

I have been arrested wrongfully on a basis that since I was bi-polar, the medication caused me to crash into a cone. And they kept delaying drugtests (which is the simple-est most crystal clear way to answer). Which resulted in lawyer fees. I know this is insignificant compared to the death penalty but I know the US judicial system can be incompetent (As I think most other places of around the world can be).

I guess, I'm just a bit apathetic  about this, there's other things I care more about to make a difference with.  As long as the system stays the way it is. These things are going to happen unfortunately.

There are numerous or a plentiful amount of cases that aren't fair. But hopefully, cases like these will encourage people with law as their passion to fix these stupid things.

Sorry, my viewpoint is a bit in nowhere'sville.

How the hell you can decide to legally murder someone when there are this many holes in the case is beyond me. Someone needs to get punched in the face.

It is significant, as it just further proves that judicial systems are often out-of-date (and maybe even archaic). I also blame you apathy on your meds.

Yes, it is quite shocking that you can execute someone with solely circumstancial evidence and false testimonies. I think lots of people should be punched in the face. I guess the fact that the accused was black, and they were in a Southern state might have had something to do with it.

Because there are people in my country that kill without considering the consequences. The prisons are full. Murderers walk after 15 years. There are gangs that kill who know they have members in jail, so fear of being caught falls through the floor.

I would suggest the same punishment for violent rapists.

Some people are behaviourally beyond repair. This, I believe, is very difficult to understand from someone from a 1st world country and especially Scandanavia or Germany where there are less murders in the whose country in an entire year than there are in certain neighbourhoods over a single weekend.

People would quickly change there tune if their daughter/wife/mother was raped and killed and the person(s) responsible are just waiting to walk the streets again.

At OP: the man was convicted by a jury that had 7 african americans on it so your pathetic attempt to make this a racial thing has failed.

What my problem with your thread is that you make it sound as if only Black Americans are put to death in the country and that all whites walk free. Blacks are obviously over represented.

Statistics: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976

To suggest, that the fact he was only put to death because of his race is oversimplifying the situation an changing the arguement from the real issue at hand. Did this MAN commit murder or not. This man was put to death because he was an accussed of murder. The issue of this thread should not be about race since in the end he was just a man.

Ummm, doesn't really change the fact that he was found guilty with basically no convincing evidence.

The main issue of this thread isn't whether or not he was guilty (since it's something we obviously can't determine), but whether or not the evidence used to convict him was adequate. You can't convict someone with circumstancial evidence and false testimonies. The question is: why did this happen? And why doesn't it happen in other cases (e.g. Casey Anthony).