PDA

View Full Version : Peterson Gets Death



B0bDole
12-13-2004, 03:54 PM
Jurry just recommended death penalty for Scott Peterson.

Frantic-
12-13-2004, 04:02 PM
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.

B0bDole
12-13-2004, 04:11 PM
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)

7smurfs
12-13-2004, 04:41 PM
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.

VirtualAce
12-13-2004, 04:45 PM
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.

Darkness
12-13-2004, 04:53 PM
This is California we're talking about...execution will never happen.

If he did this in Texas however, he'd already be dead :)

Thantos
12-13-2004, 05:28 PM
However it would be interesting to see if he is tried for a double murder or not. 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.

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.

Govtcheez
12-13-2004, 05:36 PM
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.

Thantos
12-13-2004, 05:41 PM
Where did I say he did it?

LuckY
12-13-2004, 05:49 PM
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.

7smurfs
12-13-2004, 06:03 PM
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.
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.

Govtcheez
12-13-2004, 06:09 PM
> 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.

Thantos
12-13-2004, 06:21 PM
You still can't say that
everyone here is saying they know for sure he did it since only 1 person has said he did it (that has posted in this thread thus far).

Frantic-
12-13-2004, 06:25 PM
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.

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

sean
12-13-2004, 07:42 PM
maybe annarchy island?

Maybe Australia?

Govtcheez
12-13-2004, 07:46 PM
> 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.

sean
12-13-2004, 07:53 PM
Not the same thing.

How so? I know there's a big difference in the attitudes of the people doing it, but how come the baby is considered a human in one case, but not the other?

As much as I think he deserved at the very least life, I am a tad disgusted at the general reaction to it. I don't like walking into Walmart and having the whole store cheer as someone yells out "They gave Scott Peterson death!". That's just sick.

Govtcheez
12-13-2004, 08:04 PM
> 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.

major_small
12-13-2004, 08:07 PM
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.

Zach L.
12-13-2004, 08:24 PM
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.

Darkness
12-13-2004, 08:43 PM
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.

Darkness
12-13-2004, 08:48 PM
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

Thantos
12-13-2004, 09:44 PM
How so? I know there's a big difference in the attitudes of the people doing it, but how come the baby is considered a human in one case, but not the other?

Asked and discussed (http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showthread.php?t=58582&highlight=peterson)

LuckY
12-13-2004, 10:35 PM
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).

Thantos
12-13-2004, 10:49 PM
You've never heard of partial birth abortions, apparently. Partial birth abortions are not done on 8 1/2 months old even when they were legal.

Zach L.
12-13-2004, 10:50 PM
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

LuckY
12-13-2004, 11:56 PM
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.

LuckY
12-14-2004, 12:02 AM
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.

Thantos
12-14-2004, 12:12 AM
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

LuckY
12-14-2004, 12:40 AM
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.

Thantos
12-14-2004, 12:59 AM
I have no proof atm but I'm fairly certain that abortion of the "ready to pop" have been outlawed for a long time.

Govtcheez
12-14-2004, 05:26 AM
> You've never heard of partial birth abortions, apparently.

Who's being condescending now?

major_small
12-14-2004, 07:55 AM
speaking of entertainment, has anybody seen this ad grace the pages of these very boards yet?

http://www.fragblast.com/gallery/getimage.php?id=81

Zach L.
12-15-2004, 08:16 PM
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.

My apologies for the misinterpretation.

Cheers