its so sad... Hey mum squirrly!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And for some reason, I'm ok with his sentence.
-Trevor
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
me too. I still feel sorry for him though. I do not ustify what he did, but it is kind of sad seeing how his family ended up. Mom and child dead, dad on jail...not a pretty picture.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Since he's directly responsible for the first, I'm not that sympathetic for the second.
Sorry, I can't bring myself to feel sorry he's on death row - call me blood-thirsty, but my only real regret is how long he'll live in relative comfort on death row.
-Trevor
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Peterson still might not be executed for decades, if ever. That is because California's death row has grown to house about 650 condemned men and women since the state brought back capital punishment in 1978, according to the AP.
Since then, only 10 executions have been carried out -- the last one in 2002. It can take years for even the first phase of the appeals process to begin.
Good choice?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The idea of him spending life in prison with the change of being raped, assaulted and possibly murdered while in the general population has a certain appeal, but advocating a life sentence in order to achieve that end has a certain "back door" approach to punishment and that's not one I can easily justify.
-Trevor
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Ugh. Did you have to say "back-door approach"?
Strangely, as I've gotten older, I've moved from being pro-death-penalty to being moderately against. I just don't really think it's necessary in a society that is perfectly capable of keeping its worst prisoners segregated from the general population.
Now, I don't think it's a moral evil, either. I think that there are many situations in which instituting the death penalty could be the only means of maintaining peace, preventing recidivism, etc.
But at the moment, ours isn't one of them. I'm not in any way relieved or elated to see this guy die. I mean, he did something truly awful, but even the most vengeful part of me would rather see him live with the shame of his actions than simply kill him back.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'd rather not waste the time and money on keeping him alive, indulging in what passes for his human rights and leave him the chance of re-entering society.
-Trevor
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*applauds*
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Reports say that there were cheers outside the courthouse among the crowd that gathered to hear the verdict. All I can say is, all that was missing was the pitchforks and torches.
I feel that while there was probably enough circumstantial evidence to convict, and I personally think that he did it, I don't think there was near enough physical evidence to justify a death sentence. I know that I could not have voted for death in a case where there was so little physical evidence tying a defendant to a crime.
And as to the crowd outisde...this is not something to be happy about, even if you are absolutely sure that the man is guilty. The taking of a life is never an occasion for celebration, even if that life has taken life. It is instead a somber occasion that demands reflection, not celebration.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*shrug*
Or they were afraid he'd slip through the cracks and gave voice to the relief they felt that someone so callous as to murder his pregnant wife would be subject to a punishment they believed fit his crime.
As for the lack of physical evidence - contrary to popular belief, you can't always collect physical evidence from a crime scene. And it is possible to get away with murder, based on the lack of physical evidence.
The woman who was arrested and convicted of hitting a homeless guy and letting him bleed to death while trapped in her windshield was only caught because she was stupid enough to brag about it to someone else.
-Trevor
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Can anybody tell me what the evidence against Peterson was? I've tried a few google searches, but nothing useful comes up.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Sorry...I'm okay with the death penalty, but in this case, I can't see it being appropriate. There may not be reasonable doubt he didn't do it, but it is remotely possible he's innocent. The evidence was circumstantial, wasn't it? I think the death penalty should be reserved for cases where there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person really did what they were convicted of.
And I think it's awful that some people think it's okay that inmates get raped while incarcerated. These are *people*, not refuse. People who shouldn't be in with the rest of society, certainly, but people nonetheless.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You can hit CourtTv.com and possibly the Smoking Gun, located on their website.
Since the court proceedings will become a matter of public record, you can actually get copies of everything by contacting the courthouse.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not wanting to be raped could be considered incentive for avoiding acts that might get you sent to prison.
The US "corrections" system is lopsided at best and functions on an archaic, if not primitive set of principles - although I don't think many people would be comfortable with a more proactive form of rehabilitation.
As to the issue of "person or garbage", my opinions are a tad extreme, so I'll leave this one alone.
As for the California standard, Dag may have to correct me but I believe it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond any and all doubt."
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is beyond reasonable doubt. And it is considered improper to look at how "sure" of guilt we are when assigning punishment. The trial happens in two stages. The first answers the question, "Did he do it?" The second decides what the punishement will be.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
That's what I mean re: reasonable doubt vs. absolutely no possible doubt. I think it's reasonable to apply the reasonable doubt limit on conviction, but an even more stringent level on the death penalty. You can let a guy out of jail if what was beyond a reasonable doubt proves to still be a wrong conviction. You cannot un-dead him.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's a strange day when putting someone in prison for life is worse than killing them. And here I thought the idea behind killing them was that murder is the ultimate crime and punishable only by death. Turns out murder isn't the worst thing, prison is. Does that seem odd to anyone? Well, at least we're not pretending the justice system is about rehabilitation, it's aaaall about revenge, baby.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
There is no dignity in incarceration, it makes a man into an animal and it makes those who confine him culpable in removing a mans humanity.
Better to kill him and be wrong then to make him live in jail. Oh well we do it and we are wrong. The death penalty has dignity, but they need to make it more interesting, a lethal maze where you can see how far you get, and a stay if you make it out! That would be cool.
BC
Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
quote:but they need to make it more interesting
Yeah, that way advertising revenue can fund the prison system instead of tax dollars. I believe Carlin has articulated this theory best.
(edit: hah)
[ December 13, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: jehovoid ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, at least we're not pretending the justice system is about rehabilitation, it's aaaall about revenge, baby.
Technically it's about desert, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
If the desert is high enough, then there's no opportunity for rehab.
Dagonee
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Better to kill him and be wrong then to make him live in jail.
I don't know about you, but, personally, I'd rather be alive than dead.
Posted by Just another Dharma bum (Member # 6879) on :
The only thing was that didn't sit well with me was when the recomendation was read, people started cheering.... I think that makes us seem like barbarians, cheering that someone may be put to death. Are we not civilized?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Better to be dead then to loose your freedom, if you value your life more then you value freedom you are halfway to slavery. All it takes is someone willing to offer you the choice.
BC
Posted by jmj (Member # 7061) on :
I'm against the death penalty for a lot of reasons- many of which don't apply in this case such as the fact that poor people and people of color are more likely to end up on death row. But it is also more costly. There is tons of info out there, but here's one link http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:And it is considered improper to look at how "sure" of guilt we are when assigning punishment.
Yeah, well, I believe that the jury was instructed that they shoudn't take into consideration the emotions of the families involved when they decided on death or life without, either, but it sure looks like Laci's mother's outburst during her testimony in the penalty phase was given a great deal of weight by the jury.
I don't care what the legal "custom" is, I don't believe that it is right to impose the death penalty absent a good deal of physical evidence that the person actually did the killing. As someone else here said, you can't un-dead someone who has been executed if physical evidence (or testimonial evidence - as a confession that can be backed up by evidence) surfaces after someone has been executed. It isn't exactly unheard of that someone on death row has later been shown to not have committed the crime they were to be executed for. Not saying that's so in this case, just that executing someone is a pretty drastic action that should be used only when there is absolute certainty that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
I just don't believe in the philosophy of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out later." That isn't justice.
But, the Peterson case is kind of weird anyway. The way the media got hold of it and wouldn't let go is just bizarre. We've got another murder case here locally, you might have heard of it. A man is accused of killing nine of his children and grandchildren, some of them very young and some of them also victims of incest - some of his grandchildren were also his children, and some of them were very young. But after the initial sensationalism surrounding the actual crime, there's been no outcry, no national attention, no strategizing by the media on the best way to convict him (as there was from the beginning in the Peterson case). I suppose that this dichotomy has something to do with the fact that the Peterson case concerned a couple who was young, attractive, and upwardly mobile while the other case has to do with seemingly poor, not perceived as physically attractive, minority folks who seem to have been involved in some kind of religiously culty activity. They're marginal, so people and the media don't care so much, even though there were children involved - and even though there were nine victims.
Weird culture we live in.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Reports say that there were cheers outside the courthouse among the crowd that gathered to hear the verdict. All I can say is, all that was missing was the pitchforks and torches.
*agrees with littlemissattitude on this*
quote:I don't know about you, but, personally, I'd rather be alive than dead.
As far as I can tell, that appears to be true of all death row prisoners who claim they're innocent. There are exceptions to that when it comes to the individuals who aren't claiming innocence.
We had about 17 wrongly convicted people on Death Row here in Illinois (it's hard to keep track of the numbers). There's currently a moratorium and there isn't a real urgency on the part of the public to reactivate it.
I didn't see 60 Minutes on Sunday, but it looks like they featured just one of all-too-many Death Row cases in which the guilt of the individual is not only debatable, but maybe even unlikely.
quote: (CBS) Paul Gregory House was convicted of murder and is facing execution, even though six justices from one of the highest federal courts in the country ruled that he is innocent and should be set free.
How can a man who so many judges believe is innocent still be executed?
The case involves the murder of Carolyn Muncey, a Tennessee woman who was brutally beaten to death nearly 20 years ago. House was convicted, and has been on death row ever since.
But after new evidence emerged, his case was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals, a panel of 15 federal judges. Eight of them ruled House was guilty and should be executed. However, six of them said he was innocent and should be set free. A seventh judge called House's case "an authentic whodunnit," and said he should have a new trial.
It's really fascinating - semen found on the woman's body turns out to be the husband's rather than the person the police claimed it belonged to. Blood found on the the guy's clothing could plausibly have come from unexplainably empty vials of blood of the victim's that were packaged with his clothes. Not only that, two witnesses claim the husband, who had a history of violence toward his wife, confessed to them. They went to the police and were ignored.
Still, it looks like a new trial is an uphill battle.
*shrug*
The case against Scott Peterson looks real good right now, but who knows what could come to light in the years ahead - things about police performance, evidence contamination or other matters that might cast a different light on the probability of his guilt.
The system that attempts to deal justice is all-too-often infested with incompetence, laziness, and even corruption. It's a reality and one that needs to be thought about when dealing death at the hands of that system. IMO, of course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't care what the legal "custom" is, I don't believe that it is right to impose the death penalty absent a good deal of physical evidence that the person actually did the killing.
It's not a legal "custom." It's the law. What would the modification to the law look like that you'd like to see to implement this?
I see two alternatives:
1. Add an additional fact-finding step to the main trial, with a new standard of proof called "beyond a very tiny doubt." Have the jury mark off the degree of surety when returning the verdict of guilt or innocence.
2. Have a judge look at the evidence and rule using a similar new standard.
The first would be difficult to implement and possibly meaningless. The second would require a constitutional change, since facts leading to a death sentence must currently be found by a jury as a protection for the defendant.
Dagonee
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, you know Dag, not being an attorney (although I have trained as a paralegal and worked for a judge and so am not completely ignorant of how the system works - and how it doesn't work very well sometimes), I don't know how to approach it. However, I lean toward the feeling that if it can't be worked out some way, then the death penalty should be taken off the table completely. This because, in a totally non-legal but definitely philosophical way, I am not comfortable with the idea of sentencing people to die without some certainty that they did the crime they are being sentenced for.
Which, I suppose, just means that I would never be put on a jury in a capital case. Which is just fine with me.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:The death penalty has dignity, but they need to make it more interesting, a lethal maze where you can see how far you get, and a stay if you make it out! That would be cool.
But we don't want an abbatoir, we want a block of flats!