4
   

Scott Peterson Sentenced to Death by Lethal Injection

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:28 pm
I believe 100% that Scott is guilty. I still don't believe the death penalty is appropriate. Life without parole is apt.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:32 pm
He's in California. I don't want to pay to keep his sorry ass alive. Please, volunteer a prison in YOUR state to take him.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:38 pm
I think we are the only industrialized nation left on this planet that still sanctions judicial homicide. Every other civilized country abolished it decades ago. Puts us right in the same camp with China, North Korea, Cuba and some of the third-world nations. I like d'Artagnan's phrasing -- a leftover from the frontier mentality.
0 Replies
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 12:06 am
just a side note...Dahmer requested to be put in general population..he knew he was targeted...so life in prison worked in this situation...as it should work in the Peterson case Smile even those families of victims who have witnessed executions says it does not eleviate their pain or give them peace...Let them stay in prison for the rest of their lives ....death is too easy...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 05:49 am
I volunteer him for life in prison in California where he committed the crime.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:57 am
Too bad the death penalty really isn't a cost-effective solution, as far as anti-tax death-penalty fans are concerned.

Of course, we could just kill these guys promptly and worry later about judicial errors or other issues that may mitigate their guilt...
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 06:55 pm
There's the frontier mentality again, d'Art. Just string the bastids up from the highest cottonwood tree.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 07:22 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Since there is supposedly no hard evidence linking Scott to Laci's death, I'm guessing he won't be executed until his death sentence is commuted to life in prison


If there is no hard evidence, on what grounds was he convicted?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 07:34 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Since there is supposedly no hard evidence linking Scott to Laci's death, I'm guessing he won't be executed until his death sentence is commuted to life in prison


If there is no hard evidence, on what grounds was he convicted?
Seriously? (Scratches head) A mountain of circumstantial evidence. So much that a jury of his peers unanimously found him guilty… plus the Judge didn't throw out the verdict as I believe he's required to do if he finds the jury's decision not supported by the evidence. (Joe?)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 07:39 pm
It's my understanding that the judge has like 2 weeks to act on the jury's decision re the death penalty and has the option to lower it to "life"
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 07:56 pm
Methinks yer right Dys, but also that he can overturn the verdict completely if he doesn't see a factual basis for the finding (hate to be a pest, but, Joe?)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:11 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Seriously? (Scratches head) A mountain of circumstantial evidence. So much that a jury of his peers unanimously found him guilty… plus the Judge didn't throw out the verdict as I believe he's required to do if he finds the jury's decision not supported by the evidence. (Joe?)

I think that's probably correct. I know that a judge can throw out a jury's verdict in a civil case, so I imagine that the same rule applies in a criminal case.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:23 am
Thanks. I knew diligently watching all those episodes of Perry Mason would pay off eventually. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 07:45 am
Acquiunk wrote:
If there is no hard evidence, on what grounds was he convicted?


What do you mean by 'hard' evidence?

The mountain of so-called circumstantial evidence is very often, absent elimination by DNA, considered 'hard,' as it was in this case.

Please don't forget the DNA match from the strands of his wife's hair found in the pliars on the boat he used to transport her dead body. Then there is the fact that he bought the boat without telling anyone. He reseached the tides to find what time would be best for a body to wash out into the sea. He made concrete anchors to weigh down his wife's body. He laughed when his own mother told him there was a 'Laci-sighting' in Washington state. He showed 'consciousness of guilt' by being apprehended on a golf course (perhaps searching for the "real killers" ... oh, wait, that's been done) with thousands of dollars, a new car purchased & registered in his mother's name, lots of little incidentals which need not be mentioned here, and a spiffy new look *cough* ...

For a a better and more complete explanation, please see:

The Laci Peterson Case
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 09:14 am
I think of "hard evidence" as evidence that can stand on it's own, without consideration of any other evidence. I didn't see anything like that in your list.

No blood.
No DNA
No Eye witness
No cause of death
No murder weapon
No known crime scene

No Hard Evidence
Don't get me wrong… I find the mountain of circumstantial evidence compelling enough for the finding of guilt myself, but that doesn't promote it to "hard" evidence.

Welcome to A2K!
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 12:42 pm
I'm an archaeologist. My profession constructs elaborate explanations of the past based mostly on circumstantial evidence. But just as quickly those explanations are dumped when new evidence is recovered. I seriously question the advisability of executing someone on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If something new comes up and places the original conviction doubt, you cannot simply go back to the guy and say sorry.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 01:03 pm
Regretfully, I have to agree with you here Acquiunk. I am a proponent of the death penalty, and have little doubt that bastard deserves to die, but I also agree that the standard has to be raised from beyond a reasonable doubt, to certainty before a just society should condemn a person to death. I fully expect the system in California to eventually spare him a State-Execution for this reason, but I won't lose a second's sleep when one of his true peers exacts justice on his own.
0 Replies
 
smorgs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 01:11 pm
Sorry, guys..........but I find it absolutely shocking that America still executes people. State sanctioned killing......tut,tut.........shocking, uncivilised, obscene, hang your heads in shame. There are no arguments for. Capital punishment shames humanity.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 01:49 pm
Right you are, Sarah. It's the frontier mentality, still operating in the 21st Century. Just look at the state that executes the most people: Texas. I will say no more!
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 02:10 pm
Sarah Morgan wrote:
Sorry, guys..........but I find it absolutely shocking that America still executes people. State sanctioned killing......tut,tut.........shocking, uncivilised, obscene, hang your heads in shame. There are no arguments for. Capital punishment shames humanity.


One suggestion. Spend one day as a guard at a high security prison. You'll change your mind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 02:27:20