Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 The penalty phase of the Peterson trial is going on right now.. the defense is arguing why not to give him the DP... One of the tv commentators said in response to someone testifying for the defense that killing Scott would "kill his parents"... the TV anchor's response was... "it didn't kill the Rocha's (Laci's family) the Peterson's will be just fine" Does anyone else feel that comment was just plain out of line..? Opinions on giving Scott the DP or not..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I don't think it was out of line. I think they should fry that bastard. The death penalty is way too slow moving in this country any way. A person sits on death row forever b4 they ever get around to executing them. A person should only get a limit of 3 appeals and then its check out time. I know the moralists won't agree because what about the criminals?? what about them?? Screw them, when they committed a crime like this and were found guilty and had their appeals its too bad. I think if some criminals seen they are serious with this punishment they may think twice b4 committing a serious crime like this... or not...but they will pay for it either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 I don't think it was out of line. I think they should fry that bastard. The death penalty is way too slow moving in this country any way. A person sits on death row forever b4 they ever get around to executing them. A person should only get a limit of 3 appeals and then its check out time. I know the moralists won't agree because what about the criminals?? what about them?? Screw them, when they committed a crime like this and were found guilty and had their appeals its too bad. I think if some criminals seen they are serious with this punishment they may think twice b4 committing a serious crime like this... or not...but they will pay for it either way. So you, apparently, think the 1st degree conviction - which indicates pre-meditation - was the correct call..? Should he have also gotten 1st degree for his sons murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Yes the 1st degree was fitting in this case. I was actually surprised kind of because of the weak case and all though. He should have gotten 1st degree also for his unborn child but he is still going to serve life or maybe even get the DP for Laci so he will pay a heavy price anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Yes the 1st degree was fitting in this case. I was actually surprised kind of because of the weak case and all though. He should have gotten 1st degree also for his unborn child but he is still going to serve life or maybe even get the DP for Laci so he will pay a heavy price anyway. Gotcha. And for the record.. I don't disagree with what was said.. but I think a tv anchor saying it is out of line. Some of them are so wrapped up in this case that they've thrown all professionalism out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Gotcha. And for the record.. I don't disagree with what was said.. but I think a tv anchor saying it is out of line. Some of them are so wrapped up in this case that they've thrown all professionalism out the window. professionalism in newsreporting? Thanks I needed that laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 professionalism in newsreporting? Thanks I needed that laugh I know. An oxy-moron. At least I didn't say honesty. But seriously.... I really do wish they were not being so ignorant to the Peterson family. They didn't kill Laci, and unless they've worn those shoes.. they, IMO, don't have any place talking about how the Peterson's should or should not be acting. I don't agree with it (the way they profess Scott's innocence because I believe he did it) but I understand why they do it. Unconditional parental love. Such a terrible tragedy for all involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Geez I went on a total tangent there lol. Anyway, Maybe they shouldn't said it due to upsetting Laci's family but he was correct in what he said. Just maybe he should have kept it to himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 It amazes me though that so many people resort to murder instead of dealing with a divorce. I know divorce suchs but all the damage that is done through murder is even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Geez I went on a total tangent there lol. Anyway, Maybe they shouldn't said it due to upsetting Laci's family but he was correct in what he said. Just maybe he should have kept it to himself. No problem on the tangent. DP is a pretty emotional subject. Appreciate the opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I don't think it was out of line. I think they should fry that bastard. The death penalty is way too slow moving in this country any way. A person sits on death row forever b4 they ever get around to executing them. A person should only get a limit of 3 appeals and then its check out time. I know the moralists won't agree because what about the criminals?? what about them?? Screw them, when they committed a crime like this and were found guilty and had their appeals its too bad. I think if some criminals seen they are serious with this punishment they may think twice b4 committing a serious crime like this... or not...but they will pay for it either way. Not what about the criminal, what about the convicted that were later proved to be innocent? The one principle that has allowed out system of justice to be the best the world has ever seen, is our willingness to allow 9 guilty men to go free to prevent an innocent man to be convicted. We place a hgh burden of proof on the state and federal government to convict and we all can sleep easier tonight knowing that is true. Saddam had a much swifter justice system, want to trade?? Until the time that we can bring someone back to life, we must be 10 times 100% certain of the person's guilt. Just one comment for those that think the death penalty is a deterrent. How many gang murders have occurred in Chicago this year? Each gang member knows they could be killed at almost any moment. Do you think they worry for a moment that the state might execute them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Steff: What channel did you hear this on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Steff: What channel did you hear this on? Court TV. I didn't hear it.. the girls eating in the lunchroom did and I heard them talking about it. They said Nancy Grace said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 The penalty phase of the Peterson trial is going on right now.. the defense is arguing why not to give him the DP... One of the tv commentators said in response to someone testifying for the defense that killing Scott would "kill his parents"... the TV anchor's response was... "it didn't kill the Rocha's (Laci's family) the Peterson's will be just fine" Does anyone else feel that comment was just plain out of line..? Opinions on giving Scott the DP or not..? Ya, I'd say that was a very harsh response considering the anchors job is to tell the news. If it was an editorial I guess it would be different. Anyway, I think we all know where I stand. I see no reason for him to get the death penalty. Their is a major lack of evidence and I still think this whole thing will be re-tried and that he will walk unless new evidence is found. I'm sorry, as much as I think he did it, all they have is tons of circumstancial evidence and that doesn't cut it for me. Good thing I'm not a juror I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Ya, I'd say that was a very harsh response considering the anchors job is to tell the news. If it was an editorial I guess it would be different. Anyway, I think we all know where I stand. I see no reason for him to get the death penalty. Their is a major lack of evidence and I still think this whole thing will be re-tried and that he will walk unless new evidence is found. I'm sorry, as much as I think he did it, all they have is tons of circumstancial evidence and that doesn't cut it for me. Good thing I'm not a juror I guess. That's where I stand. If I were a juror on this case they would have been hung, or they would have had to have me removed. I would never vote to kill someone based on the evidence presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Not what about the criminal, what about the convicted that were later proved to be innocent? The one principle that has allowed out system of justice to be the best the world has ever seen, is our willingness to allow 9 guilty men to go free to prevent an innocent man to be convicted. We place a hgh burden of proof on the state and federal government to convict and we all can sleep easier tonight knowing that is true. Saddam had a much swifter justice system, want to trade?? Until the time that we can bring someone back to life, we must be 10 times 100% certain of the person's guilt. Just one comment for those that think the death penalty is a deterrent. How many gang murders have occurred in Chicago this year? Each gang member knows they could be killed at almost any moment. Do you think they worry for a moment that the state might execute them? I am not saying that as soon as they are found guilty, take them out back and shoot them. I am saying having a criminal on death row for 20 + years is ridiculous. I agree "our" system is still the best but it could be improved. Also as I stated, the criminal has appeals to work through but if they can't prove themselves innocent in a set amount of appeals they should be fast tracked. I also have to say I know it is easy for people to say they feel for the poor guy that commited the crime but if it were your daughter or wife or someone you cared about I would bet your tune would be much different. I'm not saying I'm just saying here. I think this will be a spot where we will agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 (edited) I didn't follow the trial close enough to make a judgment. My presumption as soon as the news reports talked about a missing pregnant, wife was just move to the husbands trial. It's always the husband. Of course our legal system doesn't function that way. He should be spending the rest of his life in prison learning cooking skills like tossing salads. The point the anchor makes is interesting. Killing him would double the amount of parents visiting their kids graves. It may offer some revenge for Laci's family, but it would be shallow and not bring her back. Edited December 2, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I've been oblivious to the goings on about this trial, mostly on my high horse about making murder trials media circuses. I will say this though. I believe in creating a culture of life, and that means that all human lives - even guilty ones - aren't taken unless absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I am not saying that as soon as they are found guilty, take them out back and shoot them. I am saying having a criminal on death row for 20 + years is ridiculous. I agree "our" system is still the best but it could be improved. Also as I stated, the criminal has appeals to work through but if they can't prove themselves innocent in a set amount of appeals they should be fast tracked. I also have to say I know it is easy for people to say they feel for the poor guy that commited the crime but if it were your daughter or wife or someone you cared about I would bet your tune would be much different. I'm not saying I'm just saying here. I think this will be a spot where we will agree to disagree. The amount of time it takes to investigate and analyze the evidence does take a long time. I agree, if we are going to have the death penalty, the system could be sped up. However, IMHO the death . . . Does not act as a deterrent. Check murder rates in states with and without and there is little difference. Look at Texas where we have an assembly line and wear the death chamber out, not much difference in the murder rate. Violent criminals know their lives could be taken by rival gang members, other drug dealers, etc. In a sense, they already live on death row. Crimes of passion occur so quickly the murderer doesn't think about possible punishment, either do the psychopaths. Scott could have taken Laci on a trip to a state without the death penalty and killed her there if he was worried. He didn't. Most don't think they will be caught. The death penalty is too slow and expensive. Life in Prison without parole ends the cycle faster and if extraordinary circumstances warrant, a new trail can happen. Killing someone must be done after all possibilities are exhausted. The slow trial also means the victims families relive the moment for years and years. The expense is huge, much more than life in prison. Most people who are on death row are poor and required public assistance attorneys. Tax payers wind up paying both sides of the bill. If we are going to kill someone, shouldn't they have access to all the tools that could prove they did not commit the crime? I will not go into my religious beliefs and why I believe God doesn't not want us killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 As much as I'm for the death penalty and I think a murder should be punished. The flaw is the HUGE legal costs in defending prisoners on death row. I've seen the stats often and its vastly more expensive to put someone to death on average then life in prison. I don't know if these stats are effected and whether they take account to the appeals that would take place when the prisoner is serving his life in prison (cause I"m sure he would still appeal anyway). My whole problem is I've never understood how the death penalty is more expensive, but at the same time you got to make sure that the system enables people to get fair trials and sometimes that just doesn't happen. Even if you think they are guilty, they are entitled to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life. [Albert Camus] Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment...It is also evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society." Answering your question as to why death penalty cases are more expensive, Jason: Complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs. Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the "unsuccessful" trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses. Over 80% of people executed since 1976 were convicted of killing white victims, although people of color make up more than half of all homicide victims in the US. A defendant who can afford his or her own attorney is much less likely to be sentenced to die. 95% of all people sentenced to death in the US could not afford their own attorney. In 1987, McCleskey v. Kemp, a Supreme Court case brought forth the famous Baldus study that revealed facts that proved the following: "(1) defendants charged with killing white victims in GA are 4.3 times as likely to be sentenced to death as defendants charged with killing blacks; (2) 6 of every 11 defendants convicted of killing a white person would not have received the death penalty if their victim had been black; and (3) cases involving black defendants and white victims are more likely to result in a death sentence than cases featuring any other racial combination of defendant and victim. This case was defeated by a 5-4 vote given the reason by Justice Powell: "McCleskey's claim, taken to its logical conclusion, throws into serious question the principles that underlie our entire criminal justice system." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 As for Peterson: It was a circumstantial case by the prosecution. They had no forensics tying him to the scene. They had no kill site located to which he could be tied. They had no murder weapon. They had no eye witnesses catching him in the act of doing it. I'm not saying that 100% he didn't do it. I am saying the prosecution's case sucked balls and the jury bought it because he was already convicted in the court of public opinion before the actual trial began. I mean he lied about sex. He obviously killed his wife. On Larry King, Grace said he had the wrong bait to catch croppie, so he must have murdered his wife. He bought a boat and didn't tell his dad. He lied to get sex with a younger woman. Clinton did that too. That's not proof of murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 It amazes me though that so many people resort to murder instead of dealing with a divorce. I know divorce suchs but all the damage that is done through murder is even worse. I may take some heat for this, but in my opinion, part of the blame can go to our litigious society that absolutely screws men in divorce cases. Sometimes, I guess, maybe they (the men that resort to murder) think the slight chance of getting awy with it is better than the very good chance of paying $1000 a week in child support, watching a new "honey" move into the house you built with your own two hands, sleeping in your bed, eating in your Lazy Boy, acting as if he's your kids' dad, etc. In many cases, even when the wife is the one screwing around the husband gets screwed in the end. Disclaimer: I'm not blaming women. I'm blaming lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 3, 2004 Author Share Posted December 3, 2004 I may take some heat for this, but in my opinion, part of the blame can go to our litigious society that absolutely screws men in divorce cases. Sometimes, I guess, maybe they (the men that resort to murder) think the slight chance of getting awy with it is better than the very good chance of paying $1000 a week in child support, watching a new "honey" move into the house you built with your own two hands, sleeping in your bed, eating in your Lazy Boy, acting as if he's your kids' dad, etc. In many cases, even when the wife is the one screwing around the husband gets screwed in the end. Disclaimer: I'm not blaming women. I'm blaming lawyers. Agree with this 10000%. And it's not just the lawyers I blame.. I blame the idiot judges more who allow the judgements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Agree with this 10000%. And it's not just the lawyers I blame.. I blame the idiot judges more who allow the judgements. Thanks. I thought you'd slap me around a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.