Thread: Peterson Gets Death

> since only 1 person has said he did it (that has posted in this thread thus far)

2 did, but you're right. I'm generalizing based on that and the sentiment expessed in the first thread about this.

> if they try him for the death of the fetus, then people who get abortions should also be tried for murder.

Not the same thing.

> but how come the baby is considered a human in one case, but not the other?

The baby in Peterson's case was what, 8 1/2 months along? If an abortion is done soon after conception, the clump of cells wouldn't survive outside the womb. The baby in this case could have.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

It's cute that everyone here is saying they know for sure he did it when they didn't see most of the evidence. But hey, go right ahead and condemn away.

This trial's been a joke from the beginning.

I seem to be gaining a reputation of being a "hippy" around here, but I think govt is completely right here... there's no absolute proof that he did it, and condemning somebody to death is just about as inhumane as you can possibly get.

I think the death penalty is wrong in any case anyway. how can you call yourself an 'enlightened' society and say that you know that 'an eye for an eye' is wrong, but then go and commit somebody to death?

one argument is that it costs too much to keep people in prison and alive their whole life. I say to them: to me, it's worth more to keep one murder in prison for life than it is to keep 10 drug dealers in prison for 10 years.

another argument is that they made people suffer and so they should suffer. again, you're referring to 'an eye for an eye', which I think we all can agree is not the way to go about things.

an example in this case: some reporter was saying that it was a premeditated murder, so it's only right that he has his own death hanging over his head. she didn't know she was going to die. so in this case, we're being more cruel to him than he was to her.

how can you possibly justify the death penalty? even on the fundamental level that can be understood by the child learning to grasp right and wrong: hurting somebody is wrong, right? so why is it okay to kill somebody? why is it okay to kill somebody for entertaiment?

this becomes entertainment when somebody sits in front of the T.V. all day long and news stations are saying "they brought a chair in, so something must be happing soon" and people all over America are sitting on the edge of their seats for the newest reality T.V. Show. I wonder if those people really even fully understand that this is a person's life in jeapordy here. this person has a family too.

even if they do, we cause that family pain because he killed somebody? it's wrong to kill, but all my life I've heard that two wrongs don't make a right. if my brother steals my toy, my mom would make him give it back. she wouldn't let me go in his room and pick a toy of my choice to take.

I agree with you.

One small, and interesting, point I'd like to point out though:

>>
one argument is that it costs too much to keep people in prison and alive their whole life. I say to them: to me, it's worth more to keep one murder in prison for life than it is to keep 10 drug dealers in prison for 10 years.
<<

While this is a popular argument, I have seen studies that show that it isn't the case, primarily because appeals of the death sentence drag out for long periods of time and are quite costly. Unfortunately, I can't recall exactly where these studies were, nor do I have the time to search.

Originally Posted by Zach L.

I agree with you.

One small, and interesting, point I'd like to point out though:

>>
one argument is that it costs too much to keep people in prison and alive their whole life. I say to them: to me, it's worth more to keep one murder in prison for life than it is to keep 10 drug dealers in prison for 10 years.
<<

While this is a popular argument, I have seen studies that show that it isn't the case, primarily because appeals of the death sentence drag out for long periods of time and are quite costly. Unfortunately, I can't recall exactly where these studies were, nor do I have the time to search.

You've completely right. In these cases, it typically costs the state millions of dollars just for the appeals process. I've heard it costs 40K per year to house a prisoner (taking into account EVERYTHING necessary to accomodate a person, i.e food, utilities, prison guard salaries, etc, for an entire year). It's cheaper to keep a prisoner, it's worse punishment in my opinion (I'd rather be killed than spend the rest of my life in prison), and if they find you weren't guilty they can always yank you out.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

It's cute that everyone here is saying they know for sure he did it when they didn't see most of the evidence. But hey, go right ahead and condemn away.

This trial's been a joke from the beginning.

Yeah, that's the problem. From what I've seen on TV, there's not a lot of physical evidence. It's mostly circumstantial*. I remember the prosecution trying to make some connection between some stupid rings used to hold a concrete block or something like that (used to attach to and drown a person), but when they tried to do it they wouldn't even fit.

Being the cynical bastard that I am, I think he's guilty, but the way our court system is supposed to work people shouldn't convicted with this little evidence.


*he went fishing in the same harbor or whatever that laci's body was found in. He was having an affair. etc

if they try him for the death of the fetus, then people who get abortions should also be tried for murder.

Exactly the point I was making (the biggest joke of all).

The baby in Peterson's case was what, 8 1/2 months along? If an abortion is done soon after conception, the clump of cells wouldn't survive outside the womb. The baby in this case could have.

You've never heard of partial birth abortions, apparently.

When people are prepared to condemn somebody to death without knowing most of the relevant facts, I feel I'm allowed to be.

In the hopes this isn't too repetative, they are all going by the fact that the twelve jurors who, again, do know most of the facts condemned him to death. Anyone who ever feels they are "allowed to be" condescending to anyone else at any time, especially for voicing their opinions/beliefs, really shows the quality of their character (or lack thereof). (But, of course, I wouldn't presume to say that condescendingly ;p).

LuckY, I think you place way too much faith in the justice system. I have no knowledge of this case, so I cannot say what happened here, whether I think the verdict was appropriate or not. The fact is, though, people are wrongly accused, and wrongly convicted. The jurors do not always have all of the evidence (or even most of it in cases), nor do they always make decisions based on a rational thought process (and emotion is no sound way to make judgements regarding someone else's life).

I also do not see your point about people who think they are ' allowed to be condescending'. What you are calling condescending is a judgement made by people here about others. Now, those 'others' just made a judgement about a single individual -- namely, to kill him. It seems that in your view, these people simultaneously show very good character (for expressing their opinions), and show very bad character (for presuming to pass judgement on someone else).

It does not show a lack of character, rather it shows the process of making a judgement based on available evidence (the specifics of which I know nothing). Making judgements is a necessary part of life.

I don't mean this to be an attack on you, but the statement you have just made is one which has bothered me a great deal lately (in other people).

Cheers

What you are calling condescending is a judgement made by people here about others.

As per usual, my point is being severly missed. First of all it doesn't matter what my opinion of the case is (as a matter of fact, I have yet to voice my opinion). I was merely speaking in general about the topic at hand. Secondly, the condescension of which I was speaking was not about any judgment; rather it was how Mr. Cheese was talking down to people as if they were so utterly beneath him. There's nothing wrong with judging or sharing your opinion (and no I don't think either reflects on your character in the least), however talking to people like they are lesser than you is something that should never be done.
Thanks for tossing in your two cents. I appreciate your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Thantos

Partial birth abortions are not done on 8 1/2 months old even when they were legal.

Pardon me, Thantos, but I seriously question your sources. Partial-birth abortions could be (and were) performed up to and including 9 months. It could be done as long as the fetus remained inside the mother because, legally, it was her body and not a citizen of it's own (with it's own rights) until it's extraction. We should be clear about that.

Yes, that is the new law effective as of last year, but I was responding to the fact that you were clearly referring to the situation before that law was passed in your statement

even when they were legal.