I'm not gonna argue the death penalty issue with you here.

If you believe in it, then he certainly deserves it. If you don't believe in it, as I don't, that's another argument altogether.

But if we deny the guy a fair trial as you would do, DC, then how do we know he's guilty?

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying he deserved anything more than he got.

I assume his trial was fair and he doesn't seem to have any grounds for appeal so, as I said, "Case closed"

But don't you think he had to get that trial in the first place?

We can't very well give someone a trial and then if they're found guilty say "He's guilty, so he didn't deserve a trial."

That doesn't make any sense, does it?