Peterson Case

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 14, 2004, 11:47 am

Lynks wrote:And you feel comfortable putting someone to death without knowing 100%? I know I wouldn't, but then again, I have morals.

If you made no actions unless you knew 100%, you would make no actions. Think about it retard.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » December 14, 2004, 12:21 pm

Lynks wrote:I'm not saying he didn't do it, all I'm saying there wasn't any hard/direct evidence to sentence him to death, which is a requirement for this, you know? 100%?

so you're saying he did it.

what's wrong with executing him?

Mak · Post by **Mak** » December 14, 2004, 12:48 pm

VariaVespasa wrote:Not sure why having a boat his family didnt know about is relevant mind you.

*Hugs*
Varia

How about if he was out in the boat "fishing", on the day she disappeared, on the lake where her body washed up on shore just a couple of miles away, and several strands of her hair were found caught in a pair of pliers that were in the boat?

Is that relavant?

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 14, 2004, 1:01 pm

Fash wrote:If my wife went missing,
and i had,
concrete anchor molds,
a boat none of my family knew about,
a habit of lying to everyone i talked to,
a mistress,
another mistress,
and i was to,
tell my mistress my wife was dead weeks prior to her disappearance,
say she went missing,
try and sell the house,
stake out the cops at the marina searching for the body,
dye my hair,
disguise myself,
get $10,000 in cash,
and get caught by the cops while heading towards mexico,
by all means,
fry my fucking ass.

Most of these instances are explainable. He was a high profile, recognizable person. I would have tried to change my appearance as well just to be left alone. His wife DID know he had a boat. There are witnesses that say she was at the boat house before she disapeared. I also don't believe that Scott ever actually told Amber Frye that his wife was dead. Amber claimed that she never even knew he was married. As for the $10,000, he said it was for the purchase of a car. And there was never actually any proof that he was making a run for the border. He had several months in which he could have left the country at any time and didn't.

I personally believe that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of this crime. The little bit of evidence that did exist was circumstantial and the prosecutions main job was to show him in a bad light. I also find it odd that jurors that thought he was innocent kept getting removed from the jury.

Comparing this case to the OJ case is completely wrong. OJ got off because he had a better defense team and because the police screwed up the handling of the evidence. There was no evidence to screw up in this case. Scott Peterson was a prick and loser but that doesn't make you a killer. He probably deserved the life sentence but there definitely was not enough evidence to give him the death penalty.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 1:05 pm

Maybe you'd do that if you killed your wife Deward.. but if you didn't kill your wife and you wanted her back, you'd be emotional, you'd be pleading on tv, you'd be convincing. this guy was stone cold.

just because he didn't bring a video camera to do it, doesn't mean we don't get to kill him.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » December 14, 2004, 1:11 pm

That's not true. I don't wear my heart on my sleeve so everyone can take a gander (gander? wtf?) at it. Different people react to stress in different ways. His lack of emotion has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. For the record, I didn't follow the case at all, and as such have no opinion on the verdict. I am however against the death penalty for the simple fact that mistakes happen, and even one innocent person in the death chamber is too many.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 1:15 pm

It's a bit sad you put so much importance on one single human life.

Calixte · Post by **Calixte** » December 14, 2004, 1:20 pm

Deward wrote: I also don't believe that Scott ever actually told Amber Frye that his wife was dead.

Yea, the only thing Scott told Amber was that he "lost" his wife and that Christmas would be the first without her. He didn't actually say she was dead but I'm sure that's what he wanted Amber to think. More sympathy for him.

Deward wrote:He probably deserved the life sentence but there definitely was not enough evidence to give him the death penalty.

I completely agree. The circumstancial evidence was enough for the guilty verdict in my opinion (I believe he is guilty), but I need more physical evidence to sentence a man to death.

The lack of physical evidence in this case has baffled me. There were far too many coincidences for me to believe that he didn't do it, but because there wasn't ANY physical evidence (and I don't really count the hair in the boat as evidence, because there were witnesses claiming to have seen Laci in the boat), I still have a tiny shred of doubt. That is why I couldn't sentence him to death. I may feel that he is guilty, but I would need more solid proof.

Calixte · Post by **Calixte** » December 14, 2004, 1:27 pm

Fash wrote:It's a bit sad you put so much importance on one single human life.

Why is that sad? Would you say the same thing if someone you loved was wrongly accused and sentenced to death?

And for the record, I'm not referring to Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. But when you stop caring about one single human life, then what's two or three more matter? Ten? Fifty? Where do you draw the line?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 14, 2004, 1:39 pm

Spang wrote:
Lynks wrote:I'm not saying he didn't do it, all I'm saying there wasn't any hard/direct evidence to sentence him to death, which is a requirement for this, you know? 100%?
so you're saying he did it.

what's wrong with executing him?

I don't know 100% if he did, Thats why.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 1:44 pm

It's not about drawing a line... It's about the guilty verdict. The jury says he's guilty, and sentenced him to death. How can you say there's enough evidence to say he's guilty, but not enough evidence to kill him? If he's guilty, he's guilty.

I just wish the death row system actually, ya know, killed people.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » December 14, 2004, 1:52 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynks wrote:And you feel comfortable putting someone to death without knowing 100%? I know I wouldn't, but then again, I have morals.
If you made no actions unless you knew 100%, you would make no actions. Think about it retard.

I believe that Lynx's opinion is that in a case where the prosecution is relying upon loose circumstantial evidence rather than eyewitness acounts, or even clear forensics (skin under fingernails, suspect DNA at crime scene, etc) that the death penalty may be something that should not be allowed. He would probably argue that the absense of clear evidence and/or forensics will always leave enough legal doubt to warrant removing the death penalty option even if the legal system has allowed this type of circumstantial case to constitute "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a conviction. I think that maybe you should think about it, too.

I do not have an opinion as to the verdict or the sentencing as I have not followed the case with any particular interest. I do not even know if I am for or opposed to the death penalty, so don't bother assuming I am supporting Lynx's or anyone else's point of view; I was just offering clarfication and interpretation.

Calixte · Post by **Calixte** » December 14, 2004, 1:55 pm

Fash wrote:How can you say there's enough evidence to say he's guilty, but not enough evidence to kill him? If he's guilty, he's guilty.

Based on what I've read, I would say he is most likely guilty. Most likely being 98%. The 2% of remaining doubt is what would keep me from killing him. Had there been any physical evidence, any at all, I wouldn't have those doubts.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 2:00 pm

What doesn't make sense to me, is that he now becomes a burden upon the taxpayers of California.

Why should he be supported and cared for by the state that he broke the rules of?

Not that death row is any cheaper, but that's our fucked up system, and it's these fucked up people fighting against the death penalty.

I'd rather a lot of dead murderers, possibly a few dead innocents, and a prosperous state that isn't spending $30,000+/year per inmate.

We need judicial reform.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 14, 2004, 2:34 pm

Fash wrote:What doesn't make sense to me, is that he now becomes a burden upon the taxpayers of California.

Why should he be supported and cared for by the state that he broke the rules of?

Not that death row is any cheaper, but that's our fucked up system, and it's these fucked up people fighting against the death penalty.

I'd rather a lot of dead murderers, possibly a few dead innocents, and a prosperous state that isn't spending $30,000+/year per inmate.

We need judicial reform.

Right on!

We need major reform. All TV's gone. No play time in yard. Only educational books and magazines. No internet. No personal items of any kind. Jail isn't a place to have fun. It's a place to pay dearly for breaking the law.

Problem is the ACLU and libs won't let that happen.....IT"S NOT FAIR!!!! Fucking bastards.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » December 14, 2004, 2:50 pm

Lynks wrote:
Spang wrote:
Lynks wrote:I'm not saying he didn't do it, all I'm saying there wasn't any hard/direct evidence to sentence him to death, which is a requirement for this, you know? 100%?
so you're saying he did it.

what's wrong with executing him?
I don't know 100% if he did, Thats why.

how can you not be 100% sure he did it but still think he did it?

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » December 14, 2004, 2:53 pm

Fash wrote:What doesn't make sense to me, is that he now becomes a burden upon the taxpayers of California.

Why should he be supported and cared for by the state that he broke the rules of?

Not that death row is any cheaper, but that's our fucked up system, and it's these fucked up people fighting against the death penalty.

It's not like there's much chance of a death row (DR) inmate in California is ever being executed anyway. I can't quote any figures, but I'd be willing to bet that the annual costs of housing a DR inmate is signifigantly higher than those of a general population inmate, so if your concern is honestly the burden on the taxpayers, then you'll be ok with it if the judge decides to overrule the jury's sentencing recommendation and send him to prison for life without parole, right?

As far as Peterson goes, yes, he's most likely guilty, and I'm rather comfortable with his conviction. I'm even fine with the 2nd count of murder for the death of the unborn child, despite my strong pro-choice position. This is because at 8 months, the baby was certainly viable, and it was obviously the mother's intention to give birth to him. However, I do question how one count can be premeditated and the other could not. Peterson was completely aware of her pregnant state, and knew fully how his actions would affect their unborn child. Despite this, the jury's sentencing recommendation sets a dangerous precedent (or more likely bolsters an already established precedent) of applying the death penalty while lacking signifigant and overwhelming evidence. I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty to begin with, but I can accept it when there's aboslutely no doubt of the convicted person's guilt. IMO, when our standard for guilt / innocence is "beyond a reasonable doubt," our standard for death should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which leads me to this:

Fash wrote: I'd rather a lot of dead murderers, possibly a few dead innocents, and a prosperous state that isn't spending $30,000+/year per inmate.

We need judicial reform.

(My response to this has nothing to do with Peterson specifically, it has to do with the application of the death penalty in general.)

That fact that you're willing to sacrifice a few potentially innocent lives to expidite the executions of hundreds of truly guilty people soley for the sake of saving a few bucks is fucking abhorent. Our judicial system is designed to offer the lowest possible opportunity for someone to be convicted wrongly, but it still happens. Our system is built upon the idea that it's better to allow a guilty man to walk free, than to send an innocent man to prison, and our the government's option to apply the death penalty should be held to a higher standard. The fact that wrongly convicted people HAVE been executed is enough for me to question whether there should be a death penalty at all. That possibility should be enough to give any reasonable person pause. Even the mere chance that a wrongly convicted person could be executed makes spending what is essentially, in the grand scheme of things, a few extra dollars to house the truly guilty people for life more than worth it.

It's terribly easy for some asshole like you to be so cavalier with regards to the taking of one's freedom or life when you've never (I presume) been wrongly accused or imprisoned.

*Edited to fix a couple of spelling / grammar errors. No changes were made to the content.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » December 14, 2004, 2:56 pm

I am just not comfortable with the government taking lives where there is the possibility of error. "A few innocents" is way too high a price to pay for killing these sick people.

And I like I said I don't think this sets a good precedent. How long will it be before the government starts to convict people of treason and execute them on heresay evidence just because they do not like the administration? Pinochet ring a bell?

-=Lohrno

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 14, 2004, 3:07 pm

Spang wrote:how can you not be 100% sure he did it but still think he did it?

Its called reasonable doubt. He was convicted because a lot of evidence POINTED to him, but it was all still speculation. I'm only 80% sure he did it, but according to the law, you must know 100%. The only person that truely knows would be Scott.

And there is no way in hell YOU, or anybody here, can know 100% unless you saw the whole thing.

Throw him away for life x 2.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 3:49 pm

Lynks wrote:Throw him away for life x 2.

50 years at $30,000 each is $1,500,000 or 1.5 million dollars. FOR ONE GUY.

1.5 million is only a 'few' bucks to you Xatrei ????

got a few bucks I could borrow?

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » December 14, 2004, 3:56 pm

I agree with what Xatrei wrote.

For those of you who think it's ok to mistakenly execute innocent people - you're saying if it was a person you loved that was sentenced to death, yet that person really was innocent, and they did execute him... you're ok with that?

Didn't think so.

FYI - I believe Peterson is guilty. But based on the fact that there was no physical evidence, he should get life in prison. Had there been physical evidence, by all means, kill him.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » December 14, 2004, 4:04 pm

who ever killed her was really good then. a fucking genius!

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » December 14, 2004, 4:05 pm

Fash wrote:
Lynks wrote:Throw him away for life x 2.
50 years at $30,000 each is $1,500,000 or 1.5 million dollars. FOR ONE GUY.

1.5 million is only a 'few' bucks to you Xatrei ????

got a few bucks I could borrow?

Note my use of the words "in the grand scheme of things." 30k a year within a budget of billions is an acceptable number to me if it means that a person who is even possibly convicted wrongly doesn't get executed. Again, this isn't about Peterson specifically, but about the use of the death penalty in general, and your assertion that it's better to kill a few innocent people if it gets rid of all of the guilty, than to leave them all sitting in jail for life. There are simply too many instances of innocent people sitting on death row - or even worse - that have already been executed, for me to be willing to play so loosely with the death penalty. The fact that your justification for this is simply a few dollars disgusts me.

In your mind, at what point does the cost of incarceration justify the execution of a prisoner? 300k, 600k, 1000k? Why not just execute anyone who's going to be incarcerated for more than 10 years because you're not willing to pay the costs associated with it?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 4:13 pm

Legenae wrote:For those of you who think it's ok to mistakenly execute innocent people - you're saying if it was a person you loved that was sentenced to death, yet that person really was innocent, and they did execute him... you're ok with that?

If someone I loved was convicted and sentenced to death, as high as that fucking standard is these days... even if as far as I knew they didn't do it... I'd still accept it.

People die... accident, disease, old age, etc.. again, this inflated importance of a human life is the problem. Sure it's well-intended that we walk through life with this expectation that no one dies.. but it's fucking stupid... Life is not a certainty, and I've been too close to ending my own life to inflate the importance of it.

I'm more appalled by the number of chicken and cattle we slaughter every day. (note that im not against it and dont think it could ever be stopped, just that i don't separate man from animal as far as most)

Legenae wrote: FYI - I believe Peterson is guilty. But based on the fact that there was no physical evidence, he should get life in prison. Had there been physical evidence, by all means, kill him.

so just because he was 'smart' enough and almost 'got away with it' by leaving no hard evidence... you would rather the state of california spend over a million dollars keeping him imprisoned for the rest of his life... i don't like that at all, and if i were him i'd rather be dead & innocent, than innocent & trapped for life in a cell.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 14, 2004, 4:25 pm

Fash wrote:Maybe you'd do that if you killed your wife Deward.. but if you didn't kill your wife and you wanted her back, you'd be emotional, you'd be pleading on tv, you'd be convincing. this guy was stone cold.

just because he didn't bring a video camera to do it, doesn't mean we don't get to kill him.

I love my wife very much but I am not an emotional person at all. I haven't shed a tear since maybe the 6th grade. I am just not that sort. My wife gets pissed at me because I won't cry about anything. I just had my first child and everyone was bawling except me. I would plead on TV for her return but I know I wouldn't be all blubbery and crying.

The biggest thing to me about this case was that Scott Peterson came out day one saying what his alibi was. Anyone could have framed him at that point. There are just too many questions in this case. I am not anti-death penalty by any means though. In fact I think it should be expanded to attempted murder, child molesters and serial rapists as well.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 14, 2004, 4:36 pm

Fash: You are making the assumption that the death penalty is cheaper than life in prison. This is a very risky assumption.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 108&scid=7

In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000

Capital cases burden county budgets with large unexpected costs, according to a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, "The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions," by Katherine Baicker. Counties manage these high costs by decreasing funding for highways and police and by increasing taxes.

The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty.

Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution.

And so on. As you can see, there is a mountain of evidence available which directly contradicts you and can easily be discovered by utilizing google. When given the choice between your contrived $1.5 million figure and the real research which shows that the death penalty is excessively costly, I'll take the real research.

My interests in the death penalty in this country are utilitarian only. It happens in such a small number of cases that I'm not really going to get bent out of shape about it. I view the death penalty and life imprisonment as functionally identical punishments, because the end result of both is the permanent removal of that individual from society. With that in mind, I would support any policies that make the judicial system more efficient, whether those policies made use of the death penalty or not. At this point, the death penalty is not an efficient punishment, and seeing as it's functionally identical to life imprisonment, it seems kind of silly to keep getting hung up on it.

As to Midnyte's suggestions of prison reform: I think that would only make jails more dangerous, more violent, and worse breeders of repeat crime. The only way to make jails serve an efficient rehabilitation function is to either vastly decrease the number of inmates or vastly improve the quality of self-development programs.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 4:45 pm

I never said the death penalty the way it stands is cheaper.. I said, and i quote, " it's not cheaper, but that's our fucked up system. "

I'm pro - death. I'm pro judicial reform to speed up the current death penalty. I'd like to not see someone last on death row longer than a year. But to be realistic, I'd like to see a bill that gives a 3-5 year maximum in which you must be killed if you're sentenced to death.

We spend ourselves into oblivion.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 14, 2004, 4:45 pm

Your point about the costs of execution vs. life in jail is very important. We have always taken this "fact" for granted. It has been thrown out by the libs for decades.

The important question here is why? You have to take emotion out of the equation and try on a little logic on for size. You might like the way it fits.

How is it possible, one 30 second moment could possibly cost 24 million? What makes up this number? What are they rolling into this number? How could it possibly cost 24 million to inject someone with something to kill them? We should look into that pharmacuetical company if that's the case. Frying someone costs 24 million? Really? Even if it costs 500 thousand, we should then switch over to injections, assuming they don't cost 24 million that is.

Again, I plea to you. Stop looking so narrow and small. Look at the bigger picture. Ask questions. Use logic.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » December 14, 2004, 4:55 pm

I love how so many people start off "I think he's guilty, but..." No one here has any doubt that he's guilty. If there is any doubt about his guilt it should have been a factor in the trial phase, not the sentencing phase.

Yeah, the death penalty is more expensive, but I think it's time for some much needed reform. There should be a mandatory law that states someone will be executed within 2 years of the sentence, and any anti-death penalty activist groups who argue on the side of someone who is clearly guilty just to try to prolong it should be put to death too. Furthermore, it should be done with a bullet to the head to make it even cheaper. I could go for that.

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » December 14, 2004, 5:18 pm

Fash wrote:
Legenae wrote:For those of you who think it's ok to mistakenly execute innocent people - you're saying if it was a person you loved that was sentenced to death, yet that person really was innocent, and they did execute him... you're ok with that?
If someone I loved was convicted and sentenced to death, as high as that fucking standard is these days... even if as far as I knew they didn't do it... I'd still accept it.

Even if it was your father/mother, sibling, your spouse... they are truely innocent though some circumstantial evidence points to them, so they are sentenced to death, then years later they find the real criminal and say to you "Oops sorry we killed your dad/etc" you'd be like "ah that's ok. Mistakes happen." I still find that hard to believe.

Legenae wrote: FYI - I believe Peterson is guilty. But based on the fact that there was no physical evidence, he should get life in prison. Had there been physical evidence, by all means, kill him.

so just because he was 'smart' enough and almost 'got away with it' by leaving no hard evidence... you would rather the state of california spend over a million dollars keeping him imprisoned for the rest of his life... i don't like that at all, and if i were him i'd rather be dead & innocent, than innocent & trapped for life in a cell.

So right there you say that if it was you in prison, you would prefer death than life behind bars. I'd rather give you what you DON'T want - a miserable life behind bars. That would be the bigger punishment. Why make it easy on you by giving you death instead?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » December 14, 2004, 5:40 pm

Legenae wrote:
Fash wrote:so just because he was 'smart' enough and almost 'got away with it' by leaving no hard evidence... you would rather the state of california spend over a million dollars keeping him imprisoned for the rest of his life... i don't like that at all, and if i were him i'd rather be dead & innocent, than innocent & trapped for life in a cell.
So right there you say that if it was you in prison, you would prefer death than life behind bars. I'd rather give you what you DON'T want - a miserable life behind bars. That would be the bigger punishment. Why make it easy on you by giving you death instead?

I said if I was innocent, i'd rather be dead.. obviously if i was guilty i'd also rather be dead... but since you're so concerned about the innocent... why would you want an innocently convicted person to have 'a miserable life' behind bars?

death is quick, and final.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 14, 2004, 5:48 pm

and permanent.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » December 14, 2004, 5:55 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynks wrote:And you feel comfortable putting someone to death without knowing 100%? I know I wouldn't, but then again, I have morals.
If you made no actions unless you knew 100%, you would make no actions. Think about it retard.

If the action could result in death, then yes, I agree with this poorly writen statement.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » December 14, 2004, 8:49 pm

I'd rather a lot of dead murderers, possibly a few dead innocents, and a prosperous state that isn't spending $30,000+/year per inmate.

See that is the difference between you and me: I value those innocent people over a chump change.

If someone I loved was convicted and sentenced to death, as high as that fucking standard is these days... even if as far as I knew they didn't do it... I'd still accept it.

I highly doubt you would accept it. Very easy to say now but way WAY harder to do it if you ever were in the situation. Not to mention, this case (and quite a few cases where they have been found guilty by mistake) proves that the standard is far from high.

How is it possible, one 30 second moment could possibly cost 24 million? What makes up this number? What are they rolling into this number? How could it possibly cost 24 million to inject someone with something to kill them? We should look into that pharmacuetical company if that's the case. Frying someone costs 24 million? Really? Even if it costs 500 thousand, we should then switch over to injections, assuming they don't cost 24 million that is.

Do some research, retard. I wrote a research paper on capital punishment and the evidence is overwhelming. There are more numbers out there than you could read without getting a headache (so .. hum.. 2?) but then again, that would once again work against your point so we can't have that now can we?

gain, I plea to you. Stop looking so narrow and small. Look at the bigger picture. Ask questions. Use logic.

Spewing this after the above comment is.. well.. classic.

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » December 15, 2004, 2:35 am

Fash wrote:
Legenae wrote:
Fash wrote:so just because he was 'smart' enough and almost 'got away with it' by leaving no hard evidence... you would rather the state of california spend over a million dollars keeping him imprisoned for the rest of his life... i don't like that at all, and if i were him i'd rather be dead & innocent, than innocent & trapped for life in a cell.
So right there you say that if it was you in prison, you would prefer death than life behind bars. I'd rather give you what you DON'T want - a miserable life behind bars. That would be the bigger punishment. Why make it easy on you by giving you death instead?
I said if I was innocent, i'd rather be dead.. obviously if i was guilty i'd also rather be dead... but since you're so concerned about the innocent... why would you want an innocently convicted person to have 'a miserable life' behind bars?

death is quick, and final.

Well, I wouldn't rather be dead. I'd hope there was someone out there who would still search for the truth of what happened to prove my innocence. But to each their own.