You'd have to judge each case on its merits. When it comes to carrying out justice, carte blanche solutions don't work very well, they did that sort of thing in the dark ages. Henry VIII could be a bit of a bastard in that regard. :smile:
wrongful conviction in niece's murder
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
You'd have to judge each case on its merits. When it comes to carrying out justice, carte blanche solutions don't work very well, they did that sort of thing in the dark ages. Henry VIII could be a bit of a bastard in that regard. :smile:
They do if you're cutting cookies.
I think the whole system is flawed. I remember when Jeffery Dahmer was convicted. His lawyer said something very interesting. He said (I'm paraphrasing) "The guilty verdict raises an interesting question. How many people do you have to kill and eat in the State of Wisconsin before you are considered insane?"
As for capital punishment, why do so many people want to give a government, that screws up everything it does, the power to kill its citizens?
I think the whole system is flawed. I remember when Jeffery Dahmer was convicted. His lawyer said something very interesting. He said (I'm paraphrasing) "The guilty verdict raises an interesting question. How many people do you have to kill and eat in the State of Wisconsin before you are considered insane?"
As for capital punishment, why do so many people want to give a government, that screws up everything it does, the power to kill its citizens?
While none of us can get into Mr Smyth's head, I don't believe for a minute that he was on William's side. Interviewers use different tactics depending on the suspect. Interrogation conjours up all sorts of images from the dark room with a single bright light, sleep deprivation, waterboarding etc. While brow beating might work on a nervous street punk, a decorated senior Air Force officer would likely become defensive if aggressive tactics were used. The gaining of a suspect's trust, having him or her think you are on their side does work wonders to break down their defenses. A belief that honesty will garner sympathy is the prosecution's best ally. Just think of that friendly, conscientious police officer who last stopped you for speeding, "Good day, (sir of ma'am), how are you today? Do you know why I stopped you? Do you know how fast you were going?" How many would answer, "I don't know"? Or "Oh, a hundred and two"? Gotcha, you've either admitted to speeding or qualified the officer's evidence against you.
Here we have an experienced and talented interviewer who used a time tested tactic with a desired result, and he did it with panache, I would have had to get out of the room a few times to punch a couple of walls, and then shower with Javex by the time it was over.