krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 13,544
- Reaction score
- 46,193
I have a hard time accepting that her first trial could not be referred to in this trial. That first trial was deemed flawed so everyone was to just pretend that trial never happened. But now with sentencing they have to give her the same or a lesser sentence than she got after her first conviction.
So...if the trial was flawed and needing a do-over, why not the sentence? Why is the judge restricted by a sentence that was the recommendation of a flawed jury in a trial that, for all intents and purposes, never happened?
The laws sure do slant in favor of the perpetrators. It makes me sick.
So...if the trial was flawed and needing a do-over, why not the sentence? Why is the judge restricted by a sentence that was the recommendation of a flawed jury in a trial that, for all intents and purposes, never happened?
The laws sure do slant in favor of the perpetrators. It makes me sick.