Peterson got death

[lolita715]

This jackoff should get death just because he had downgraded from that gorgeous wife of his to that crack ho.

You guys must be kidding!! Your talking about his wife and how hot she was, and about how nasty his girlfriend was. You do realize two people died! Get a life!!

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

You guys must be kidding!! Your talking about his wife and how hot she was, and about how nasty his girlfriend was. You do realize two people died! Get a life!!

There you go again, piss-wit. If Lacy had aborted her baby at Planned Parenthood you would have said nothing.

 

[lolita715]

There you go again, piss-wit. If Lacy had aborted her baby at Planned Parenthood you would have said nothing.

Hey dip shit why dont you read before you post!!! Your post has nothing to do with mine!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Children play nicely.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Hey dip s@!t why dont you read before you post!!! Your post has nothing to do with mine!!!!

You wish.

 

[Merlin1047]

Do you think there is something that was left out to prove his innocence? Like what? A pregnant woman killing cult? I think that the jury realized after looking at the circumstances that they were dealing with a cold killer who planned the event and who thought he was smart enough to get away with it. I think the jury did their job. It's just too bad that the jury for OJ didn't do theirs. Are these the actions of an innocent guy when you add it all up?

He went "fishing" on Christmas eve day all by his lonely. You'd think if he was innocent that he might say he was going fishing but really make tracks over to the girlfriends instead.

He was into cement-block making.

The bodies surfaced nearby where he went "fishing".

He sold his wife's car not too much later after his wife "disappeared".

He had a girlfriend on the side.

He lied to his girlfriend.

He dyed his hair, got a pile of money, and was headed for Mexico. If he was innocent as he claimed, why would he feel the need to flee?

He wouldn't(probably couldn't) speak for himself on the stand.

He never showed any real sorrow for his dead wife and baby.

The only time he showed any real emotion was when it looked like HIS neck was on the line.

Scott Peterson was not on trial for being a low-life, scum-sucking horse's ass. He was on trial for a double murder. This trial and verdict are exactly indicative of the problem I have with the death penalty. Not a single item that you stated could be considered evidence in any real sense. Instead, it is a collection of circumstance which tend to point to his guilt. We have sentenced a person to die based on circumstantial evidence.

I don't have a problem with the guilty verdict. But I believe that imposing the death penalty based on "evidence" such as this is highly inappropriate. In order to impose the death penalty, a jury should have incrontrovertible hard scientific evidence.

Perhaps if we cleaned up the capricious manner in which the death penalty is currently imposed, we would not have such a long waiting list on death row. If the rules of evidence for the death penalty were more stringent and more consistent throughout the country, then perhaps those who deserve the death penalty would have that sentence carried out with far less delay.

Part of the reason for the extensive delays granted those who have received the death penalty is due to the fact that the courts acknowledge that we have sentenced many innocent people to die. Scott Peterson may well be guilty. The evidence may be sufficient to imprison him for life. The evidence is not, in my opinion, of sufficient quality to sentence him to die.

 

[dmp]

Would any of this matter to anyone if Lacy had been ugly?

Men killing their wives happens daily. Men killing pretty ladies seems more horrific in the Media's eyes.

If I were on the defense team, I'd have argued Lacy WISHED to abort Connor - since a woman can choose to kill a baby most any time she wants, perhaps it wouldn't have been a double murder conviction?

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Would any of this matter to anyone if Lacy had been ugly?

To me it would. Who cares????

 

[dmp]

To me it would. Who cares????

Easy to say....

Most people would wince at the though of somebody ripping the wings off a butterfly, yet few ppl care about squishing a cockroach.

 

[UsaPride]

Would any of this matter to anyone if Lacy had been ugly?

Depends on if it mattered to the media. The media showed and talked about Lacy so much that you almost get to know her. If Lacy was unattractive, but they still discussed her at the same lengths as they do now, then I believe people would be just as interested. I would anyway.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Easy to say....

Most people would wince at the though of somebody ripping the wings off a butterfly, yet few ppl care about squishing a cockroach.

Excellent point -=d=-, but I make no claims to be a part of the media that only cares about appearance!! I'll just leave that up to Hollywood. Who cares if she had a good boob-job or not?

P.S. Becha there were a few ugly people killed in the OKC bombing or the WTC. Why aren't you challenging me about them?

 

[dmp]

Excellent point -=d=-, but I make no claims to be a part of the media that only cares about appearance!! I'll just leave that up to Hollywood. Who cares if she had a good boob-job or not?

P.S. Becha there were a few ugly people killed in the OKC bombing or the WTC. Why aren't you challenging me about them?

What the hell makes you think I'm 'challenging' you or anyone else in this thread? It was an open-ending statement used to foster discussion on the merits of looks to our society; not some personal gauntlet thrown at your feet.

I speculate you would NOT care two shits about Scott or Lacy Peterson if she were an ugly woman, largely because the National Media would have forgotten the story long ago.

 

[dmp]

Depends on if it mattered to the media. The media showed and talked about Lacy so much that you almost get to know her. If Lacy was unattractive, but they still discussed her at the same lengths as they do now, then I believe people would be just as interested. I would anyway.

Yup - the amount of attention this case has is directly proportionate to her good looks.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Scott Peterson was not on trial for being a low-life, scum-sucking horse's ass. He was on trial for a double murder. This trial and verdict are exactly indicative of the problem I have with the death penalty. Not a single item that you stated could be considered evidence in any real sense. Instead, it is a collection of circumstance which tend to point to his guilt. We have sentenced a person to die based on circumstantial evidence.

I don't have a problem with the guilty verdict. But I believe that imposing the death penalty based on "evidence" such as this is highly inappropriate. In order to impose the death penalty, a jury should have incrontrovertible hard scientific evidence.

Perhaps if we cleaned up the capricious manner in which the death penalty is currently imposed, we would not have such a long waiting list on death row. If the rules of evidence for the death penalty were more stringent and more consistent throughout the country, then perhaps those who deserve the death penalty would have that sentence carried out with far less delay.

Part of the reason for the extensive delays granted those who have received the death penalty is due to the fact that the courts acknowledge that we have sentenced many innocent people to die. Scott Peterson may well be guilty. The evidence may be sufficient to imprison him for life. The evidence is not, in my opinion, of sufficient quality to sentence him to die.

I didn't post all the evidence that the jury looked at. There were many, many small things that all added up to his guilt. It took months to lay it all out in a very detailed, fair, and clear manner. The jury based their decision on the whole picture which added up to premeditated murder.

This is one reason why a person is tried by his peers and not "professional jurists" who would only look at the "hard scientific evidence" which may not exist.

You agree with the verdict that he is guilty. Why wouldn't you agree with the death sentence? Scott Peterson got a fair trial with plenty of legal help to argue for his life. Laci Peterson and his baby didn't get anything at all to help them argue for their lives.

 

[dmp]

Laci Peterson and his baby didn't get anything at all to help them argue for their lives.

..speculation...

 

[UsaPride]

Yup - the amount of attention this case has is directly proportionate to her good looks.

That would be because the media though, not because we (some of us anyway) are unfeeling to unattractive people.

 

[Merlin1047]

I didn't post all the evidence that the jury looked at. There were many, many small things that all added up to his guilt. It took months to lay it all out in a very detailed, fair, and clear manner. The jury based their decision on the whole picture which added up to premeditated murder.

And I was not questioning the jury's verdict. All of the evidence (that I'm aware of) that was presented was similar to that which you listed in your post. Each piece of evidence, when considered by itself, could have had any of a number of other explanations. Again, as you pointed out, it was the accumulation of circumstantial evidence which convinced the jury of Peterson's guilt. But Peterson's guilt has not been DEFINITIVELY proven by any evidence which cannot be refuted. Not even an eye witness to state that he loaded his boat with suspicious items.

I'm not saying that Peterson's crimes do not merit the death penalty. I am saying that in order to impose the death penalty, the state should be obliged to present SOLID, SCIENTIFIC evidence. No person should be sentenced to die based solely on a conclusion of guilt arrived at by a jury whose only basis for that verdict was a collection of circumstances.

 

[dilloduck]

And I was not questioning the jury's verdict. All of the evidence (that I'm aware of) that was presented was similar to that which you listed in your post. Each piece of evidence, when considered by itself, could have had any of a number of other explanations. Again, as you pointed out, it was the accumulation of circumstantial evidence which convinced the jury of Peterson's guilt. But Peterson's guilt has not been DEFINITIVELY proven by any evidence which cannot be refuted. Not even an eye witness to state that he loaded his boat with suspicious items.

I'm not saying that Peterson's crimes do not merit the death penalty. I am saying that in order to impose the death penalty, the state should be obliged to present SOLID, SCIENTIFIC evidence. No person should be sentenced to die based solely on a conclusion of guilt arrived at by a jury whose only basis for that verdict was a collection of circumstances.

Agreed---to paraphrase from Lord of the Rings--- taking a life is dangerous thing if you don't have the ability to return it.

 

[dmp]

what bothers me most is hearing the jurors claim 'We decided to execute him because he didn't show emotion'.

wtf? Some people just don't. (shrug). That's not a reason to sentence a man to death.

 

[5stringJeff]

Yup - the amount of attention this case has is directly proportionate to her good looks.

Dang... if that's the case, no one's gonna care when I die.