Scott Peterson Verdict

[CrzyC1414779017]

Post it when you hear it.

[CrzyC1414779017]

DEATH PENALTY!!!!!!

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!

[Guest JMT]

death

[CrzyC1414779017]

BREAKING NEWS

NBC News and news services

Updated: 4:49 p.m. ET Dec. 13, 2004REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -

The jury that found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife and unborn son decided Monday that the former fertilizer salesman should die for his crimes.

The six-man, six-woman jury reached its unanimous decision on its third day of deliberations, having spent about 11½ hours considering whether to recommend the death penalty or life in prison – the only two options available to them after finding Peterson guilty of killing his 27-year-old wife, Laci, and her fetus on or around Christmas Eve 2002.

Their bodies were recovered almost five months later on the shore of the San Francisco Bay, near the spot where Scott Peterson said he was fishing alone on the day his wife vanished.

[Guest tres-b]

Sentenced to death on purely circumstantial evidence...that is hard to believe. Dont get me wrong, I think the guy did it and deserves to pay, but I would have gone w/ life just based on the fact that there is zero physical evidence.

Some inmate is going to kill the guy anyway so what does it matter.

[Guest slamminshaun]

I was surprised by the verdict. I think its weird how guys like Charles Manson didn't get death, but this guy did.

[Guest web_norah]

killing one person justifies giving the death penalty to another.... ???

i'll never understand the logic behind the death penalty (redemption? revenge?) as if living in prison isn't horrible enough ...

[Guest slamminshaun]

killing one person justifies giving the death penalty to another.... ???

i'll never understand the logic behind the death penalty (redemption? revenge?) as if living in prison isn't horrible enough ...

Yeah, it must suck eating three square meals a day, lifting weights, having a library, satellite TV....and taxpayers to pay for it all.

I was surprised by the verdict myself considering its California, but I support the death penalty 100%. Kantian philosophy more or less states that the death penalty is necessary for maintaining the dignity of our species. Kant said, "If you kill another, you kill yourself" as a way to state that the punishment match the severity of the crime.

Thus, it is neither about revenge nor redemption.

[Guest tres-b]

killing one person justifies giving the death penalty to another.... ???

i'll never understand the logic behind the death penalty (redemption? revenge?) as if living in prison isn't horrible enough ...

As I stated above, unless they keep this guy totally isolated, some other inmate is going to get him before he gets executed.

[Guest JMT]

so many ex-cons want to stay in prison by choice. a warm bed, food, tv, how is that worse then death when you have no regard for life?

[Guest web_norah]

so instead of letting "someone of a higher being" condemn that person & judge them for what they've done, it is better to put the taxpayer money in use and just get the convicted felon killed by lethal injection/ gas chamber/ etc.

that makes a lot of sense.

[Guest tres-b]

If you are convicted of a felony, the time in jail should be spent doing hard labor that no one wants to do(chain gangs). If they dont work, they dont eat.

As far as the death penalty goes, I would be ok w/ it being abolished if these guys had to work like slaves from the day they go in until the day they die from exhaustion.

[Guest slamminshaun]

so instead of letting "someone of a higher being" condemn that person & judge them for what they've done, it is better to put the taxpayer money in use and just get the convicted felon killed by lethal injection/ gas chamber/ etc.

that makes a lot of sense.

I believe it was a higher being that said "an eye for an eye", thus giving humans the right to impose capital punishment.

[Guest web_norah]

i dont see death penalty being justified. sorry.

[Guest JMT]

so instead of letting "someone of a higher being" condemn that person & judge them for what they've done, it is better to put the taxpayer money in use and just get the convicted felon killed by lethal injection/ gas chamber/ etc.

that makes a lot of sense.

would-be murderers need something more to fear than life in prison. the judgment "by a higher being" for them will come in the afterlife, its up to us to arrange the meeting.

[BobbyTrendy]

I think when people get sentenced to death, they should die within a month.

It costs us taxpayers millions of dollars a year to house these fucking scumbags.. and all they do is appeal it and it drags out 30 + years... He's guilty and should DIE. NOW!

Bullshit in my eyes. Fry this fucker now.

[Guest slamminshaun]

so instead of letting "someone of a higher being" condemn that person & judge them for what they've done, it is better to put the taxpayer money in use and just get the convicted felon killed by lethal injection/ gas chamber/ etc.

that makes a lot of sense.

its up to us to arrange the meeting.

8) ;D

[ryan2772]

If you are convicted of a felony, the time in jail should be spent doing hard labor that no one wants to do(chain gangs). If they dont work, they dont eat.

As far as the death penalty goes, I would be ok w/ it being abolished if these guys had to work like slaves from the day they go in until the day they die from exhaustion.

i agree 100%

the only thing about the death penalty, is that not everyone that is sentenced to death is guilty. there was (and still is, i think) a project done by some law students in illinois that found that a bunch of people on death row are actually innocent, and i thin a dozen or so of them were freed, just on the research of this student group.

so the real problem with the death penalty isn't the morality of it, it's the fact that innocent people have been killed.

i don't have a concrete personal opinion about it, i see both sides of the moral issue. i'm a firm believer in eye for an eye, but i don't like the idea of people losing their life in error.

[Guest slamminshaun]

If DNA testing proves you did it, you die. If it can't and you're still convicted, hard labor for life. Just to clarify my position on it.

I'm still surprised that Peterson will die, but Charles Manson lives.

[Guest JMT]

Manson didnt actually commit the killings himself.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Manson didnt actually commit the killings himself.

Good point. Then the death penalty definitely would not be justified.

Here's another point to consider regarding the Peterson case. The jurors were interviewed by the media, and it seems that one of the main deciding factors for them was that Peterson "did not show emotion" during the trial. Ok, what does that have to do with anything? Since when did sitting stone-faced or having an affair with a woman justify death?

It seems like showing remorse these days almost discounts the crimes you've done. It's very possible had Scott Peterson gathered up some fake tears, he wouldn't have received death based on what jurors are saying.

I didn't realize Peterson was supposed to prove he was not worthy of the death penalty. I thought it was the other way around.

[Guest r3nz0]

It's pretty hard to instill reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror when her body was found where he went fishing that day. Circumstantial evidence may be enough for a life sentence--not sure I agree with the death penalty, however.

Seems like such a nice guy too. That's why people who are too nice scare me.

[Guest slamminshaun]

It's pretty hard to instill reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror when her body was found where he went fishing that day. Circumstantial evidence may be enough for a life sentence--not sure I agree with the death penalty, however.

Seems like such a nice guy too. That's why people who are too nice scare me.

Actually, I think he's a prick. But I don't think you can give a guy a death sentence based on him being a prick. How can a jury hand a death sentence to someone because they "didn't show enough emotion"??

The one juror said he couldn't understand how this guy could have a girlfriend if his wife and kid just died. Ummm...hello?? That's worth putting him to death over? The interviews with the jurors settled it for me. Those jurors were complete idiots. Was the guy a complete asshole? Yep....does he deserve death over what even the jury said was a "circumstantial case".....Hell no!!

Logic before Emotion in the law!!

[Guest r3nz0]

Actually' date=' I think he's a prick. But I don't think you can give a guy a death sentence based on him being a prick. How can a jury hand a death sentence to someone because they "didn't show enough emotion"??

The one juror said he couldn't understand how this guy could have a girlfriend if his wife and kid just died. Ummm...hello?? That's worth putting him to death over? The interviews with the jurors settled it for me. Those jurors were complete idiots. Was the guy a complete asshole? Yep....does he deserve death over what even the jury said was a "circumstantial case".....Hell no!!

Logic before Emotion in the law!!

[/quote']

You bring up a valid point.

And that's why I'm not convinced a layman jury always gets it right. It's far too hard many times for these jurors to deal with the emotional stress of these high-publicized cases.

[Guest tres-b]

Did you see the one juror--I think her name was Rochelle.

Unemployed mother of 4 w/ pink hair. This is a jury of my peers? Come on.