If there is no "reasonable doubt" that he did it, why not give him the needle? What standard (above "beyond a reasonable doubt") would you advocate?
Well, I would have voted to convict. I am not against the death penalty but in this case there is no blood evidence or even a manner of killing that tied it to Scott. In my opinion, it was his actions, the dumping ground, and the tapes that did him in. I have my ideas on how he did it but it is sheer speculation. I could not vote death penalty on this crime. Logic is not the law and trying to tie the conviction to the sentence doesn't work. I deflect to life in place of death. In other words, they did not prove with blood, witnesses, smoking gun type evidence he actually killer them. They did however prove circumstances were beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed them.
He won't get death.
It is possible that he didn't do it.
It is just very unlikely.
Had there been more than circumstantial evidence there would have been no doubt he did it.
That's the difference.