Trump posted on September 10: "The animal who brutally murdered this beautiful young woman from Ukraine, who came to the United States seeking peace and safety, should receive a 'fast' (undoubtedly!) trial and only be sentenced to death. No other choice!!! President Donald J. Trump"
Comments: This despicable, criminal murderer indeed deserves the death penalty, and in fact, the death penalty is too lenient for him. From the nature of the case itself, which is bloody and brutal, the occurrence of such horrifying violence in a public transportation space that carries the safety of public travel is not only an extreme disregard for the victim's life, but also severely undermines the public's basic trust in the "safety of public spaces" - when people choose to take public transportation, they rely on the daily order, and such sudden brutal crimes will tear apart the social consensus of "security," leaving psychological trauma that is difficult to heal.
However, from a judicial logic perspective, Trump's remarks clearly overstep the boundary - the U.S. judicial system follows the principle of "presumption of innocence" and "due process of law." Before the case enters the formal trial procedure, as president, Trump directly called for "only the death penalty, no other choice," which essentially intervenes in judicial independence and violates the basic principles of "judicial fairness" that the U.S. claims to uphold. The desire for a severe punishment due to anger can be understood, but even if the case is abhorrent, the demand for the death penalty must still be anchored within the judicial framework.
Original text: www.toutiao.com/article/1842953579370499/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.