Jurry just recommended death penalty for Scott Peterson.
Jurry just recommended death penalty for Scott Peterson.
Last edited by B0bDole; 12-13-2004 at 04:07 PM.
Hmm
although he killed some one, i do not believe it is right, accept for extreme cases of serial killing, treason or terrorism. thats all i have to say.
If our jails actually rehibilitated inmates, ide say long sentances would be a choice. When it comes to life in prison, what's the point in that? Also, if they don't get fixed in jail, and then just go back out there and commit more crimes, how does that solve anything. death or giving them the boot from the country. (maybe annarchy island? allow them just to kill eachother off)
It's clear that our system doesn't work. (speaking for US)
Hmm
Wooh annarchy island! I say we take a book out of the "The Twilight Zone" and send them into isolation on the moon, perhaps with a few easy to access forms of suicide. That way we can get get information about the moon, and get rid of murders at the same time. It might be a bit inhumane, but then again so is locking someone in jail for the rest of their lives.
To code is divine
Who cares about humane. He obviously didn't when he snuffed another life out. He deserves it.
However it would be interesting to see if he is tried for a double murder or not. If he is then there is a major shakeup about to happen in the age old abortion issue. If Scott gets tried for the second murder, the murder of the fetus, then how can they not try someone else who does the same? It should be interesting to see how it plays out and what comes of it.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-13-2004 at 04:48 PM.
This is California we're talking about...execution will never happen.
If he did this in Texas however, he'd already be dead
See you in 13
if they try him for the death of the fetus, then people who get abortions should also be tried for murder.Originally Posted by Bubba
He was found guilty of 1st degree murder of Lacy and 2nd degree murder of Conner. They also agreed to the special circumstance (multiple murders). This was discussed at length when the conviction came down.However it would be interesting to see if he is tried for a double murder or not.
I think it would be much better and cheaper to give him life w/o parole and just throw him in with the general population. He'd either be dead or making someone real happy.
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.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
There is only one person in the entire world that knows whether or not he did it. However in the current system if the people find him guilty, we have to trust them with it. Of course I'm sure alot of people in the jury didn't vote based upon actuall evidence and rather how somebody appears or acts. Just becuase he doesn't act innocent doesn't mean that he isn't.
To code is divine
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.
Join is in our Unofficial Cprog IRC channel
Server: irc.phoenixradio.org
Channel: #Tech
Team Cprog Folding@Home: Team #43476
Download it Here
Detailed Stats Here
More Detailed Stats
52 Members so far, are YOU a member?
Current team score: 1223226 (ranked 374 of 45152)
The CBoard team is doing better than 99.16% of the other teams
Top 5 Members: Xterria(518175), pianorain(118517), Bennet(64957), JaWiB(55610), alphaoide(44374)
Last Updated on: Wed, 30 Aug, 2006 @ 2:30 PM EDT
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
See you in 13
Where did I say he did it?
Gee whiz, you sure are a real condescending fellow, government cheese. And how.
As far as I can see, twelve of the only people in the world that did see most of the evidence decided that old Scotty truly did murder her. So yes (without the facetiousness) feel free to condemn away if you so desire.
The biggest joke about the entire happenstance, in my expert opinion, is that the crime is considered a murder of two persons.
> Gee whiz, you sure are a real condescending fellow, government cheese. And how.
When people are prepared to condemn somebody to death without knowing most of the relevant facts, I feel I'm allowed to be.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
