The point is that the article is completely one sided propaganda. It didn't mention anything about any contradictory evidence, except to say the judge felt eno

The point is that the article is completely one sided propaganda. It didn't mention anything about any contradictory evidence, except to say the judge felt enough existed. Debating the death penalty is one thing, but advocates for abolishing it aren't helping themselves by relying on this type of propaganda. This was and is a solid conviction of a guilty man. There are enough legitimate concerns to debate without taking the word of the click bait.