Scott Peterson: Guilty or Not?

[sgarringer]

According to this story, the jury has reached a unanimous verdict of the death penalty for Scott Peterson.

i hope he snap, crackles and pops on the chair.

donno if he did it, dont care. didnt much like the guy, looked and acted like a dick.

 

[Lyle]

i hope he snap, crackles and pops on the chair.

I'm fairly sure that California uses lethal injection and not the electric chair.

donno if he did it, dont care. didnt much like the guy, looked and acted like a dick.

Well, that seems like a perfectly good reason to put someone to death.

 

[wdlove]

I'm fairly sure that California uses lethal injection and not the electric chair.

Well, that seems like a perfectly good reason to put someone to death.

Yes, California uses lethal injection. Essentially a painless prodedure. The only discomfort would be the needle stick. Then the person falls asleep prior to stopping the heart and respirations. A very similar process when having a dog put to sleep. It is a very quiet way to leave.

Scott's problem will be the other inmates that won't be pleased with what he's done. Just wonder is he is really tough.

 

[sgarringer]

I'm fairly sure that California uses lethal injection and not the electric chair.

Well, that seems like a perfectly good reason to put someone to death.

They should go back to hanging, proved a much better deterant.

And yes, he (probably) killed his very hot wife and unborn child. He acted like a cry-baby about it, not fessing up. That guy diserves to die. I'd love to be the one to flip the switch / pull the lever / depress the plunger / etc.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

i just have to say this saddens me...

Mostly because the prosecution didn't prove beyond any reasonable doubt he was connected to the son. It's sad that his wife and unborn child were killed, but you can't let your emotions run wild when you might be sentencing to death someone who might not have done it.

Is there a probability of him being guilty? Yes. Is there a probability of him being innocent? Yes. To me, even if there was 99% of proof that he was guilty but still 1% of chances that he wasn't, then you just can't sentence that person to his own death.

It's ridiculous and a sad state of affairs on society and the justice system.

If you are a juror you must be consciously cold blooded enough to not let your own emotions and beliefs interfere with your verdict. You must be scientific, and these people were not. Photos of horrendous killings don't prove anything.

*end of rant*
a.

I understand where you are coming from. Since we only saw snapshots of the trial, I could only assume that I might have found him guilty. But in no way could I vote for the death penalty.

Not to say that I could never vote for the death penalty. In a case where a person is caught red handed, I could support it.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was just on a jury and we ended up not only being deadlocked, but being chided by the judge afterwards for not being able to settle on an obviously guilty verdict. The problem, the judge said, was that people are too influenced by television and the proliferation of shows like C.S.I., where the evidence is conclusive and overwhelming. In real life, this is not so and the function of the lawyers is not to prove a case beyond any reasonable doubt, but to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable is the key word here. One's sense of reason should not be affected by whether the case is murder or theft, whether the penalty is jail time or death. 99% is more than reasonable. 90% is probably reasonable as well. Did he definitely do it? No one saw him, so we'll never know. What the jury rightly found was a great probability that he committed these murders, great enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a very tough decision to come to and these people have to live with it for the rest of their lives. They were there, in the court-room. They debated this for hours and you have no idea the depth of their discussions or what they picked up by being there in the first person. Their decision should be respected.

I've been on a jury with deliberations too. What struck me is the pressure that is exerted by some stronger members on the weaker ones. It reminded of high school.

 

[QCassidy352]

They should go back to hanging, proved a much better deterant.

And yes, he (probably) killed his very hot wife and unborn child. He acted like a cry-baby about it, not fessing up. That guy diserves to die. I'd love to be the one to flip the switch / pull the lever / depress the plunger / etc.

Actually, there has yet to be a single study that proves that the death penalty is a deterrent at all, no matter what the method of execution is.

Your cavalier attitude, not really caring if he did it or not, judging him on his attitude and not the facts, your glee at his sentence... all very troubling. No matter what you think about the facts of the case, I don't see how anyone can view this whole affair as anything but tragic and very unfortunate. To revel in the fact that someone is going to die, someone who you don't know the facts about and who has done nothing to you personally, is very bizarre and disturbing.

 

[themadchemist]

And yet I'm not sure the defense has proposed a plausible explanation of a different scenario.

Technically, the defense had no responsibility to do so, and their omission of this can't be held against them.

That said, he probably was guilty of this crime and is a total slime ball. I don't care about the case particularly and avoided it at most costs, but it appears that he deserves to rot in prison. I don't really like the death penalty, in general, so I'm not comfortable with that recommendation by the jury.

 

[QCassidy352]

After reading a little more about it on cnn, what bothers me most about this case is that the jury, by their own admission, basically decided the case on what they thought of Scott Peterson. They said his "demeanor spoke for itself," that he was guilty because he didn't show enough emotion.

I don't know or whether he really should have been found guilty or not (I haven't followed the case at all) . But I do know that jurors are supposed to base their verdict on a fair and impartial weighing of the facts.

So basically, this jury would have convicted an innocent man who didn't show enough emotion (and some people just don't show much emotion in any situation, even if the feeling is there internally) and would have freed a guilty man who seemed really torn up.

 

[Lyle]

After reading a little more about it on cnn, what bothers me most about this case is that the jury, by their own admission, basically decided the case on what they thought of Scott Peterson. They said his "demeanor spoke for itself," that he was guilty because he didn't show enough emotion.

I don't know or whether he really should have been found guilty or not (I haven't followed the case at all) . But I do know that jurors are supposed to base their verdict on a fair and impartial weighing of the facts.

So basically, this jury would have convicted an innocent man who didn't show enough emotion (and some people just don't show much emotion in any situation, even if the feeling is there internally) and would have freed a guilty man who seemed really torn up.

The jury had to make two different decisions: first, whether Scott Peterson was guilty or not guilty; and second, whether to choose the death penalty or life in prison.

I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same story that you saw, but this one suggested to me that it was the latter decision (i.e. to go with the death penalty instead of life in prison) that was at least partially influenced by Scott Peterson's demeanor. I of course agree that the first decision (i.e. guilty or not guilty) should have been based on a fair and impartial weighing of the facts.

 

[Applespider]

Much of the evidence was circumstantial and to be honest, if the jury figured he was evil and coldblooded enough to commit murder, I couldn't see anything the Petersons' said, stopping them calling for the death penalty.

I did find the pictures of Laci's 'stepfather' grinning with a copy of a Death newspaper particularly troublesome though. Call me a liberal European but I don't think it's appropriate to smile like that about anyone's prospective death.

To be honest, I believe that for intelligent criminals, the prospect of a pretty pointless life staring at the same 4 walls with no chance of getting out, is a more soul-destroying thought than death. There's no proof that those eternal flames of damnation are actually there.

 

[sushi]

And yes, he (probably) killed his very hot wife and unborn child.

So what if his wife was not very hot as you state. How about if she was just a little hot, or just plain hot, or maybe ugly as sin, would you still want the death penalty?

You know, folks like you who let their emotions cloud their judgement are the scary ones.

Whether or not his wife was very hot as you state has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Sushi

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The jury had to make two different decisions: first, whether Scott Peterson was guilty or not guilty; and second, whether to choose the death penalty or life in prison.

I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same story that you saw, but this one suggested to me that it was the latter decision (i.e. to go with the death penalty instead of life in prison) that was at least partially influenced by Scott Peterson's demeanor. I of course agree that the first decision (i.e. guilty or not guilty) should have been based on a fair and impartial weighing of the facts.

Demeanor should not play a part in the deliberations. What is supposed to be considered is the threat that the individual posses to society.