Was The Death Sentence For Scot Peterson Justified?

Scot Peterson killed his wife and unborn child then dumped them into San Francisco Bay as fish food.....

drowning the homes of millions due to global warming is more important to me. the war in Iraq is more important to me.

I doubt the ice caps will melt any faster because of this discussion...

I just dont give a flying falafel

His quip about his msnbc report tonight.

Murder and crime will perhaps always be a feature of society, but there are bigger issues affecting us at present. War, disease, famine, etc. are facing people across the face of earth, yet we're too busy with our tv shows and gossip news to take heed. The corporate news media would throw this in our faces to keep us distracted, while the nation our forefathers fought for is rotting away because of greed and corruption and apathy on apart of the masses.

No, I don't believe in the death penalty. It contradicts the message of forgiveness Jesus taught. Life in prison should be enough for him to contemplate what he has done and atone for his mistake.

I am ambivalent about the death penalty....


I won't be holding any candle light vigils for Scot Peterson or David Westerfield but I won't be lighting any cigars either....

them Christian Right folks that think they own the country, is the Old Testament crap to them too?

If people are so Christian, perhaps they'd try to follow Jesus' message instead of being hypocritical on it. Then again, people have been cherry-picking the bible to justify various atrocities from slavery to the persecution of Jews and homosexuals.

its killing

:crazy:

He can age in prison, but the death penalty is barbaric. I can't imagine the pain the family is feeling, but when one innocent is killed we all lose.

With me, I believe only God can provide justice. THINK how many innocent people may have been put to death within the USA only because they could not afford a thoughtful lawyer?

It matters NOT to me as a practicing "liberal" Catholic whether or not Scott Peterson is Guilty. We (the USA Federal or State government) should not play executioner.

Scott Peterson will end up the same way that Jeffrey Dahmer did. Someone at the Big House will take care of business.

Having California pay for Peterson's execution is state-sanctioned murder. What does it solve? Nothing.

How is that different from killing a child or an adult?

If life is going to be treated as a sacred thing that no one can take away regardless of the heinousness of the crime, shouldn't the same consideration be given to the innocent unborn?

I am against the death penalty, but even I can recognize there is a double standard between killing someone outside the womb and someone inside of it. Not an easy answer!

THey never presented any evidence that he killed his wife and kicked all pro-defense jurors off to avoid a hung jury. The case will probably be overturned on the jury issue alone. However, in the meantime, based on nothing other than evidence that he was a bad husband, he has been sentenced to death. That should be a warning to all bad husbands and potential bad husbands.

I guess Mrs. genius should sleep with one eye open...

he's a very bad actor

Why couldn't he just get a divorce or run away?


Because the fertilizer salesman thought he was smarter than everybody and could get away with it...

evidence only.

I have no problem with the death penalty philosophically (I consistantly support the Culture of Death), but our justice system is so corrupt, inept and racist that the death penalty should almost never be applied.

withesses might be mistaken or intend to deceive but circumstantial evidence does not lie...

unless you're on the O.J. jury.

Killing people is immoral.

Much more reliable than the other forms of evidence - eyewitness and confession.

I agree, however, that the death penalty should rarely be used, given the complete imperfection of the system.

And I could go on and on and on and on and on about this, but won't!! We all know MOST of the rhetoric and the arguments by heart!

I do have something to say! The overwhelming HOOPLA over one trial got MORE attention than a STOLEN ELECTION!!

M.U.D.! Merikans Under Dip-Shit! D.S.A. Divided States of America!

is the main reason that crap like the Peterson case GETS the big media coverage.

It's an easy sell -- sells fishwrap

It's cheap -- we taxpayers pay the cost of the show trial, the media pays next to nothing

It keeps people's attention away from such trivialities as the Iraq Quagmire, Stolen Election II, Rumsfeld, etc.


:nuke: bush

I am actually against the death Penalty.
I think it was meant to deter people from commiting crimes of murder.
But in my opinion it hasnt stopped one murder at all.
People who are dumb enough to take a life don't think of the personal results of thier actions.
Actually spending youe entire life in jail is more of a punishment then getting fried.

If one does - then I presume one would vote "yes"; if not, then I presume one would vote "no."

Point being - I think the poll does not capture what people think about Peterson as much as it captures what people think about the death penalty.

Perhaps putting a name to the action makes it more relevant. Seems to me that serving time is much more of a punishment!

I'm expecting the post wherein those who voted "no" are drawn and quartered any time now. :)

I believe in the death penalty, especially for child killers. But there was no weapon found, no cause of death determined, no blood in Luminal testing, no DNA testing that could get a greater than 1 in 200 (WTF?) match to Laci's hair, and finding her in SF bay after he fished in the bay is like saying they found her in Rhode Island after he visited Providence. At least the prosecutors in the Atlanta child killings case took the effort to hire current experts to try and prove that the bodies could have been found where they supposedly dumped him. Finally, the Jury said today that their decision for guilt and death was based primarily on his demeanor in court, if that's not a Fifth Amendment violation, I don't know what is.

Summary, Death Penalty, good for child killers.
Scott Peterson, Asshat but not proven worthy of death.

I do not believe they proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, in the first place. He was a rotten lying cheating SOB as a husband and THAT is why they voted him guilty.

If he DID do it without a doubt, I'd say yes.

Without a doubt is not the criteria. And what exactly is a "reasonable doubt"? What reasonable to one person might not be reasonable to another person. Regardless, I have no doubt of any kind he did kill his wife and unborn baby. Thus, I think he got what he deserved.

.... but I would only apply it in cases where the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible - in other words not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "beyond any doubt".

I havent' paid a great deal of attention to this case, but what I did hear makes me think the dude is a waste of life all around, but it seems that the case against him was mostly circumstantial.

Probably enough evidence to put him behind bars, but not to kill him IMHO.

and the jury followed state law in recommending the death sentence.

If you don't like the death penalty, and I count myself among those that don't, change the law, not take it on the jury.

I watched the jurors's press conference and they struck as consciencious citizens that merely carried out their duty.

armchair judges knows what it was like to sit and listen to all the evidence for and against the man while he was sitting right there. And none of us knows what the jury deliberated over when they did, on the conviction and the sentencing.

They are NOT average citizens.

No person who is not pro-death penalty can server on a capital jury in this state.

The majority opinion here in the state of California, if presented with a choice between the death penalty and life without parole, is AGAINST the death penalty and FOR life without.

They were 12 conscienciously deluded pro-death advocates. They start out with a major cognitive disconnect -- the result of the penalty phase is almost a foregone conclusion. In other words, bullshit...



:nuke: bush

The way they should do it is hang an anchor around his neck the way he did Lacy and send him to the bottom of the ocean still alive...I have no sympathy for this bastard.

Maybe that isn't the "christian" way to look at it, but this was a sick and unnessary death.

I know what it's like to be in the close, physical proximity to a state-sanctioned murder.

You don't ever want to be near it.

There's a sick miasma that's so thick in the air you can taste it. The feeling of insanity over what the state's getting ready to do is a tangible thing -- people go crazy around it (especially the "Cops" who are tasked with carrying it out).

You don't ever want to be near that.

And it leaks out into the general society -- it demeans and devalues all of society whether you know or recognize it or not. It's the ultimate self-degrading act of a supposed "civilization".




Maybe you'd better go back and read what "Christ" actually (allegedly) said, not the bullshit you hear from pro-death asshole fundy preachers.

I mean in terms of his own ability to get his original conviction appealed. If he had been given life, the appeals courts are historically less likely to review the case in a serious manner. With the death penalty, he'll be allowed endless appeals.

to play God and decide who is to die?

1) It demeans all of society -- murder is never justified even when carried out by the "state" (especially if it's carried out by the "state").

2) It does NOT deter. Rather, crime statistics show that states with the death penalty have a HIGHER capital crime rate than states without one.

3) It supplies a rationale for those who want to kill others, that is, I've personally heard criminals say, "The govt. can send people to kill in a war, can murder in cold blood in an execution chamber, why shouldn't I be able to 'pay someone back' for a capital crime committed against me." Although their language was usually a bit cruder.

4) It makes it harder to convict people charged with heinous crimes. The bar is (and SHOULD BE) so much higher for a capital case that it's much more expensive to try and more difficult to convict someone in a death penalty case.

5) It costs a hell of a lot more. Re; #4 above, the requisite appeals process requires a lengthy and necessary incarceration of the condemned at many more times the cost of the average inmate.


But the NUMBER ONE REASON IS THAT IT'S MORALLY WRONG!!


:nuke: bush

I personally know of a couple of judges that are personally opposed to the death penalty but that, in one case had to impose it after a jury found defendant guilty of capital murder.

Let me edit that: Change 'a human being' to 'one of its citizens'. The State frequently kills humans in war.

for the sake of American justice I will throw in my two cents.

Scott Peterson was a cad. I believe he did away with his wife. I do NOT believe his crime was of such a magnitude as to incur the death penalty.

Lot's of men/women kill their spouses. Likewise, many murders in general take place; not ALL of these events get the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty to a point. If the states want the death penalty, then it should, in my view, be reserved for thee most heinous of criminals like: Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy, Charles Whitman, John Wayne Gacy, Jeff Dahmer etc

The media and the Rocha family over hyped this murder in public. Got everyone's emotions stirred up. If I were the mother of Laci, I'd be raging upset too and probably have to be stopped from committing murder on Scott myself. However, again, there are countless daughters and family members lost to murder in this country...they don't automatically get these results. I think it's dangerous to try someone in the press like this. It's akin to vigilantism..

but Death should NEVER be a penalty

but Death should NEVER be a penalty