Bye Bye Scott (Yahoo-AP)

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:23 pm

Oi! There's R&P in my EBG!

Coskesh · Post by **Coskesh** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:37 pm

I have no beef with the death penalty, but I think it's the easy way out. Let him spend the rest of his life in jail, hopefully looking over his shoulder wondering when his next gang-rape is coming. Er, that's if he is truly guilty of course

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:50 pm

Given the numbers of people on Death Row that have been proven innocent by DNA tests, I think the standard of guilt needed to apply the Death Penalty should be far more stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you are Jeffrey Dahmer and get caught trying to carve up a small child, and you have various human body parts scattered around your abode, you should go down.

Personally, I don't think the level of evidence in this case rises to the point where I'd be comfortable applying the Death Penalty, but YMMV.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:58 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Ok, let's just assume the jury decision was correct here. Pretend there were 100 witnesses and video footage. Take out the TV law bias against "circumstantial evidence."

Is execution the proper punishment? Why? And would you execute every other convicted double murderer in jail (or on the streets) right now?

1) YES
2) Because it's a deterrent, and it's expensive not to
3) YES

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:04 pm

Zekester wrote: 1) YES
2) Because it's a deterrent, and it's expensive not to
3) YES

Actually, studies have shown that it has no deterrent effect and it's more expensive to execute a prisoner than keep them in prison for life.

It's only about vengeance. I can understand the emotion, and I'm not sure I'd be any different if someone close to me was murdered - but those who think the death penalty is about deterrence or cost are fooling themselves.

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:16 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote:Oi! There's R&P in my EBG!

Yes, and thank the lord! Reminds me of the GGlory days.

nomorals · Post by **nomorals** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:26 pm

Eh that death penaly info page lost all credibility when they tried to compare child death rates by firearms with the presence of the death penalty.

GungHo · Post by **GungHo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:00 pm

In a perfect world(we're seeing that phrase quite a bit in this thread) yeah Im for the death penalty...unfortunately as Exodor(I think it was you) pointed out, the death penalty is nothing, NOTHING but venegance for an aggrieved family. It's not a deterrant and it's not a cheaper solution. It's not too hard for me to believe that it doesnt deter; it's not quick enough. If we took a convicted felon out on the steps to the court immediately after they were convicted and shot em in the head, I think it'd be a far stronger deterrant...unfortuantely(and obviously) then you run the risk of violating the main tenent of our judicial system.

So, does Peterson 'deserve' to die? Yeah, IMO he does. Does his sticking around for another 40 years do society any good? Think that's pretty obvious.

But I dont think that the death penalty, as it exists in our country now, is an effective solution to anything.

Zekester · Post by **Zekester** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:51 pm

Exodor, i'm unfamiliar with that site......how biased might it be?

But it still doesn't change my mind, because I think the only reason that it may not be a deterrent is because it's not used enough

And the more it's used, the more effecient it would come...thus reducing cost$

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:39 pm

geezer wrote:I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think "An eye for an eye" is a savage, primitive way to enforce law, and I think that state-sanctioned punitive killing is repulsive.

I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think killing your wife and unborn child is a savage, primitive way to get out of a relationship, and letting an asshole that did that continue living is repulsive.

Kill him.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:57 am

2 w00t's for RM9

Spiff · Post by **Spiff** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:53 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
geezer wrote:I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think "An eye for an eye" is a savage, primitive way to enforce law, and I think that state-sanctioned punitive killing is repulsive.
I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think killing your wife and unborn child is a savage, primitive way to get out of a relationship, and letting an asshole that did that continue living is repulsive.

Kill him.

Yeah, we went thru that debate when I posted about my sentencing a guy to death in January.

Deterrent or not, isn't the issue. You lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned when you use this argument. If any pinishment was a deterrent, then we wouldn't have jails full of rapists, crack dealers, burglars, and other assorted felons. It's the law. In certain circumstances, if you kill someone, the possible punishment is death. End of story.

Scott Peterson did the totally unimaginable when he killed his pregnant wife and tossed her into the ocean. He knew when he committed the act, that the possible punishment was death, but he chose to act anyway. As far as I'm concerned, he got exactly what the law allows. No more, no less.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:14 am

What bothers me is all the emphasis on the fact that he killed his wife and that she was pregnant (aside from the fact that it make 2 muders instead of one). If there's a death penalty, it shouldn't be ruled by the emotional aspects of the case (pretty wife, good person, loving, etc). How is what Peterson did any different than a gangbanger gunning down some other gangbangers on their front porch? Essentially the death penalty as it works right now is a deterrent for:

1. Killing whites
2. Killing sympathetic victims
3. Committing exceptionally grisly murders
4. Not spending every last penny on good defense
5. Being black

No one says, "Well, getting caught and doing life in prison ain't so bad but 20years on death row and then execution? No way. I'll settle this verbally." The lure is getting away with it completely, not the difference between life in prison and the death penalty.

The only deterrent that I see having even a slight effect is states with automatic death penalties for knowingly killing police officers. Then it's "I'm caught. I can add one more murder and get the death penalty automatically or take my chances with a good attorney/running."

Beer Goggles · Post by **Beer Goggles** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:03 pm

It is California so he only has 40 to 50 years left to live.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:09 pm

Option #4: Don't care. Doesn't affect my take home pay.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:13 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
geezer wrote:I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think "An eye for an eye" is a savage, primitive way to enforce law, and I think that state-sanctioned punitive killing is repulsive.
I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think killing your wife and unborn child is a savage, primitive way to get out of a relationship, and letting an asshole that did that continue living is repulsive.

Kill him.

Easy to say, but imagine your wife and unborn child turn up dead. You're tried, convicted and sentenced to death, exhaust your appeals and fry. 18 years later Smoove B confesses to doing it. If you were doing life you could walk free. Since you're six feet under, you can't.

The justice system is not infallible. Innocent people are convicted. Some restitution can be made if they were sentenced to jail. No restitution is possible if they are killed.

Bakhtosh · Post by **Bakhtosh** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:22 pm

He carefully thought out the murders, planned them, carried them out with machine-like precision, without remorse, and his actions post-murder can only be carried out by the worst kind of sociopath. In my view, the ability to carry on as he did during the search makes him more dangerous than the serial killers that he'll be living with on death row.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:31 pm

Easy to say, but imagine your wife and unborn child turn up dead. You're tried, convicted and sentenced to death, exhaust your appeals and fry. 18 years later Smoove B confesses to doing it. If you were doing life you could walk free. Since you're six feet under, you can't.

The justice system is not infallible. Innocent people are convicted. Some restitution can be made if they were sentenced to jail. No restitution is possible if they are killed.

So you think he is innocent? There was more evidence against him then there was for him. Baktosh is correct. He showed no remorse and has not asked to be forgiven. He deserves exactly what he gets. Wrongful verdicts do not happen as much as they used to. Color, sex, and age are no longer a major reason for the verdict as they were years ago.

lokiju · Post by **lokiju** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:49 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote: Wrongful verdicts do not happen as much as they used to. Color, sex, and age are no longer a major reason for the verdict as they were years ago.

I am not so sure I agree. Things have gotten better no doubt, but it's still very prevalent.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:06 pm

Exodor wrote:
Zekester wrote: 1) YES
2) Because it's a deterrent, and it's expensive not to
3) YES
Actually, studies have shown that it has no deterrent effect and it's more expensive to execute a prisoner than keep them in prison for life.

Yes, and who does these studies? Groups with an existing bias.

And the reason it's more expensive to execute a death row inmate, is because various anti death penalty groups use every legal trick in the book to block the executions, which runs up the legal cost.

Of course, they do this so they can then point out how expensive it is to execute prisoners.

Well, they should know, since they're the ones helping to run up the cost.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Bakhtosh wrote:He carefully thought out the murders, planned them, carried them out with machine-like precision, without remorse, and his actions post-murder can only be carried out by the worst kind of sociopath. In my view, the ability to carry on as he did during the search makes him more dangerous than the serial killers that he'll be living with on death row.

I don't know if that makes him more dangerous. It certainly doesn't make him more threatening to me personally. I won't ever be married to the man (and I doubt regardless of how this turns out anyone will ever be). A serial killer on the other hand, or even someone who committed murder during a robbery, is a relatively higher threat to me and I'd wager everyone else. I'm far more likely to fit into either of their victims' profile than Peterson's.

Face it, in the case of Scott Peterson execution is punishement and payback. It's not making the world safer. Would I flip the switch if he murdered someone close to me? Probably. Fortunately I'm not in that situation.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:20 pm

Raven wrote:Yes, and who does these studies? Groups with an existing bias.

Of course they have a bias - all advocacy groups do. Can you dispute their findings?

And the reason it's more expensive to execute a death row inmate, is because various anti death penalty groups use every legal trick in the book to block the executions, which runs up the legal cost.

The only other option is to streamline the system and increase the risk of executing innocent people.

Of course, we all know innocents would never reach death row.

Well, they should know, since they're the ones helping to run up the cost.

Or, one could argue they're the ones helping to stop the execution of innocents.

But the death of a few innocents is worth the "benefits" to society from the death penalty, right?

Wait, what are those benefits again?

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:22 pm

gbasden wrote:Given the numbers of people on Death Row that have been proven innocent by DNA tests, I think the standard of guilt needed to apply the Death Penalty should be far more stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you are Jeffrey Dahmer and get caught trying to carve up a small child, and you have various human body parts scattered around your abode, you should go down.

Personally, I don't think the level of evidence in this case rises to the point where I'd be comfortable applying the Death Penalty, but YMMV.

Ditto.

I mean, perhaps the jury heard some evidence that was more damning than what was shared with us, but in my mind there is still a reasonably good chance of his innocence (although he probably did it). He's a cheating, heartless asshole, no doubt (I'm guessing this image played a large role in his conviction). But if every heartless asshole who cheated on his wife killed her, then our population would be significantly lower. And to then execute someone on those same grounds seems quite dangerous.

As for Law's hypothesis (murder on camera with witnesses): I'd have to know more about his motive. If it was because she was pregnant, then yes. If it was part of a heated discussion, no.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:26 pm

No, he shouldn't be executed. I am against the death penalty

This:

I did a study on this once a while back and you would not believe how much money it cost to keep them in jail for 1 year. I think for Manson it is over $1 million per year. I would have to look that up again though.

struck me as odd. Sure, it sucks that putting someone in jail costs money, but do you really think that the amount of money it costs to execute someone as opposed to how much it costs to put him in prison for life should be in any way, shape or form a deciding factor on what punishment a certain crime warrants?

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:23 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:
Easy to say, but imagine your wife and unborn child turn up dead. You're tried, convicted and sentenced to death, exhaust your appeals and fry. 18 years later Smoove B confesses to doing it. If you were doing life you could walk free. Since you're six feet under, you can't.

The justice system is not infallible. Innocent people are convicted. Some restitution can be made if they were sentenced to jail. No restitution is possible if they are killed.
So you think he is innocent? There was more evidence against him then there was for him. Baktosh is correct. He showed no remorse and has not asked to be forgiven. He deserves exactly what he gets. Wrongful verdicts do not happen as much as they used to. Color, sex, and age are no longer a major reason for the verdict as they were years ago.

I have no idea if he's innocent, and neither do you. We have only media reports to go on, and that's a very poor indicator of guilt or innocence. Even if we were exposed to all the information in the same way as the jurors, they are not infallible. I'm willing to trust their judgment that he's guilty to the extent that he should go to prison for life, but not for his life to be taken away. Not when there's no practical benefit to doing so (no general deterrence effect, not even a cost benefit), only an abstract justice principle. Put the man away for life.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:29 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:Easy to say, but imagine your wife and unborn child turn up dead. You're tried, convicted and sentenced to death, exhaust your appeals and fry. 18 years later Smoove B confesses to doing it. If you were doing life you could walk free. Since you're six feet under, you can't.

The justice system is not infallible. Innocent people are convicted. Some restitution can be made if they were sentenced to jail. No restitution is possible if they are killed.

My standard doesn't require infallibility. It simply has to be really good at it. If I didn't kill my wife and unborn child, I have to believe that there will be a lack of evidence that I did kill my wife and unborn child. It I get convicted, and my appeals fail, that's a bad day for me.

I'm not terribly enthusiastic about killing innocent people - but I also don't believe we have a terribly large population of innocent people on death row. So I'm ok with that.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:30 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
geezer wrote:I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think "An eye for an eye" is a savage, primitive way to enforce law, and I think that state-sanctioned punitive killing is repulsive.
I've been through this debate before here. Suffice it to say that I think killing your wife and unborn child is a savage, primitive way to get out of a relationship, and letting an asshole that did that continue living is repulsive.

So Society is as vile as the criminal. That's a great standard to aspire to.

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:00 pm

Napoleon wrote:No, he shouldn't be executed. I am against the death penalty

This:

I did a study on this once a while back and you would not believe how much money it cost to keep them in jail for 1 year. I think for Manson it is over $1 million per year. I would have to look that up again though.
struck me as odd. Sure, it sucks that putting someone in jail costs money, but do you really think that the amount of money it costs to execute someone as opposed to how much it costs to put him in prison for life should be in any way, shape or form a deciding factor on what punishment a certain crime warrants?

That's a good point, Napoleon, and a point of view I hadn't thought of.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:17 pm

We have only media reports to go on, and that's a very poor indicator of guilt or innocence.

I trust the media enough that they are not gonna feed us bullshit on the 2nd biggest case in America.

Also, hearing from the jurors about the way he was in court...he didnt really care what was gonna happen to him. He showed no remorse AT ALL! Obviously he did not value the life of his wife and unborn child so why should the state value his life and throw him in prison for the rest of it? By what you are saying, IMHO, it should be a double standard. It is ok for him to kill 2 people but the state should not execute him for it. Do you think that Tim McVeigh should have been executed?

I guess we will never know how the victims family feels unless one day one of us becomes the family that had a loved one + an unborn child murdered. Then, I believe our minds will change.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:46 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:I trust the media enough that they are not gonna feed us bullshit on the 2nd biggest case in America.

I think you are not kidding here. But I *really* disagree with you.

Yankeeman84 wrote:Also, hearing from the jurors about the way he was in court...he didnt really care what was gonna happen to him. He showed no remorse AT ALL! Obviously he did not value the life of his wife and unborn child so why should the state value his life and throw him in prison for the rest of it? By what you are saying, IMHO, it should be a double standard. It is ok for him to kill 2 people but the state should not execute him for it. Do you think that Tim McVeigh should have been executed?

Perhaps he didn't show remorse because he didn't kil them? I honestly don't know. But let's assume he did kill them and further was not remorseful. The state should still value his life specifically because we (the people/the state) should be held to a higher standard than a cold-blooded murderer. The pathetic excuse for a human that decided to kill his wife sets the bar for that action. The state doing the same in retribution doesn't speak very highly of the difference between the state and the criminal, in my opinion. No one is saying that it's OK for him to have killed his wife, and no one is saying that it is OK for McVeigh to have killed the people he did. But the simple fact that they did those things doesn't make it any more "right" to kill in retaliation.

Yankeeman84 wrote:I guess we will never know how the victims family feels unless one day one of us becomes the family that had a loved one + an unborn child murdered. Then, I believe our minds will change.

Probably. Then again, if someone killed my wife, it shouldn't be up to me to mete out punishment, as I'm hardly an objective person in that regard. Secodarily, if someone DID kill my wife, and I kill them in return, what exactly have I accomplished?

TheGameAh · Post by **TheGameAh** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:59 pm

Just a few random thoughts from reading:

The media won't feed us bullshit on this case

I disagree. Whether Peterson was found guilty or not guilty, from the vast number of media reports I've read and seen, I believe the media already decided Peterson was guilty long before the trial was over.

Also, the general statement of

He showed no remorse in court

My opinion: So what? What does this prove exactly? After a long court battle with everyone turning on me I might be a little emotionless too.

I'm not defending Peterson. Did he murder his wife and child? I have no idea. And I agree with some of the other posters here that it is impossible to come to a conclusion with the details that we as a public have.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:01 pm

geezer wrote:So Society is as vile as the criminal. That's a great standard to aspire to.

Is it vile to jail people convicted of false imprisonment?

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:06 pm

The Preacher wrote:
geezer wrote:So Society is as vile as the criminal. That's a great standard to aspire to.
Is it vile to jail people convicted of false imprisonment?

I think you're kinda kidding, but honestly, I'll confess that I'mnot big on punative reaction on the whole. The need to "punish" seems fairly selfish and doesn't realy address the problem that society is nominally trying to solve IMHO.

I mean, everyone says "criminals need to be punished." But why? So that they won't be criminals anymore? So that they compensate their victims somehow? Or just because we are too primitive to get past the anger we have that demands that we make ourselves feel better by striking back.

Just some random musings.. I'm not sure I even believe what I just wrote, but I'm thinking about it...

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:07 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:He showed no remorse AT ALL!

First of all, you have no idea if or how he grieved. Because someone is effusive in front of the cameras doesn't mean he isn't shedding crocodile tears. Hey, OJ put on a good show of being upset. Oh wait, he was not guilty.

Second, the guy was carrying on an affair behind his pregnant wife's back. He is without a doubt a complete and utter asshole who deserves misfortune for what he was doing to his wife. But that doesn't make him a murderer. A man not bemoaning the loss of a wife he clearly didn't care enough about doesn't add up to much in my book. The loss of his child is more questionable but also a bit less predictable given that a lot of soon-to-be fathers are not always as attached before birth (or at least so the parenting books say).

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:11 pm

geezer wrote:
The Preacher wrote:
geezer wrote:So Society is as vile as the criminal. That's a great standard to aspire to.
Is it vile to jail people convicted of false imprisonment?
I think you're kinda kidding, but honestly, I'll confess that I'mnot big on punative reaction on the whole.

My point was that you can't compare what an individual does and what our justice system does. The individual doesn't set a standard because we enable the justice system to do things we don't allow an individual to do. Capital punishment stands (or falls) on its own merits, not by comparison to individuals' powers.

Spiff · Post by **Spiff** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:24 pm

Perhaps he didn't show remorse because he didn't kil them? I honestly don't know. But let's assume he did kill them and further was not remorseful. The state should still value his life specifically because we (the people/the state) should be held to a higher standard than a cold-blooded murderer. The pathetic excuse for a human that decided to kill his wife sets the bar for that action. The state doing the same in retribution doesn't speak very highly of the difference between the state and the criminal, in my opinion. No one is saying that it's OK for him to have killed his wife, and no one is saying that it is OK for McVeigh to have killed the people he did. But the simple fact that they did those things doesn't make it any more "right" to kill in retaliation.

Perhaps he didn't show remorse because he's a cold, heartless, brutal killer?

Held to a higher standard? Why? We all make up society in general. Society and the justice system have laws we are all supposed to follow. If you break those laws, there are consequences.

Timoth McVeigh? Are you serious? That fuck deserved the death penalty as soon as his trial was over. He sat on death row for 5 years and taunted the victims of his crime with his bullshit interviews and various letters he sent to TV journalists in Oklahoma. I get to see the result of McVeigh's cruel acts every day, and every day I see it, I'm glad he's gone. He deserved the death penalty. As a reference, a real good friend of mine lost his father as a result of the bombing, so I have a very personal view on McVeigh, and needless to say it's not very favorable.

I don't see it as "killing in retaliation" at all. I see it as carrying out the law as it is written. BTW - The death penalty isn't an automatic penalty for killing someone. In order to impose the death penalty there are several factors that must be present during the commission of the act in order for the crime to be punishable by death. That's why most deaths as a result of arguments, passion, etc. aren't prosecuted as 1st degree murder.

We have laws in this country that need to be followed. Deterrent or not, the death penalty is a possible punishment for committing 1st degree murder. Don't like that, work to have the laws changed. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think it's cruel and/or unusual punishment. I have absolutely zero problem with the death penalty. If you don't want to be executed, don't commit the crimes that carry a death penalty sentence. Pretty simple.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:27 pm

geezer wrote:I mean, everyone says "criminals need to be punished." But why? So that they won't be criminals anymore? So that they compensate their victims somehow? Or just because we are too primitive to get past the anger we have that demands that we make ourselves feel better by striking back.

Mmm...punishment does little to rehabilitate. But I'm not interested in rehabilitating everybody. And I have no particular problem with stooping to Peterson's level as we inject him with nastiness for his crimes.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:31 pm

Spiff wrote: In order to impose the death penalty there are several factors that must be present during the commission of the act in order for the crime to be punishable by death. That's why most deaths as a result of arguments, passion, etc. aren't prosecuted as 1st degree murder.

We have laws in this country that need to be followed. Deterrent or not, the death penalty is a possible punishment for committing 1st degree murder. Don't like that, work to have the laws changed. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think it's cruel and/or unusual punishment. I have absolutely zero problem with the death penalty. If you don't want to be executed, don't commit the crimes that carry a death penalty sentence. Pretty simple.

We have laws in various states, not "in this country." A murder may or may not meet the requirements of the death penalty in a particular state and then it may or may not result in death. The law isn't automatically applied when requirements are met.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:32 pm

Timoth McVeigh? Are you serious? That fuck deserved the death penalty as soon as his trial was over. He sat on death row for 5 years and taunted the victims of his crime with his bullshit interviews and various letters he sent to TV journalists in Oklahoma. I get to see the result of McVeigh's cruel acts every day, and every day I see it, I'm glad he's gone. He deserved the death penalty. As a reference, a real good friend of mine lost his father as a result of the bombing, so I have a very personal view on McVeigh, and needless to say it's not very favorable.

I don't see it as "killing in retaliation" at all. I see it as carrying out the law as it is written. BTW - The death penalty isn't an automatic penalty for killing someone. In order to impose the death penalty there are several factors that must be present during the commission of the act in order for the crime to be punishable by death. That's why most deaths as a result of arguments, passion, etc. aren't prosecuted as 1st degree murder.

We have laws in this country that need to be followed. Deterrent or not, the death penalty is a possible punishment for committing 1st degree murder. Don't like that, work to have the laws changed. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think it's cruel and/or unusual punishment. I have absolutely zero problem with the death penalty. If you don't want to be executed, don't commit the crimes that carry a death penalty sentence. Pretty simple.

You could not have said it any better. I agree 100%.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:32 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
geezer wrote:I mean, everyone says "criminals need to be punished." But why? So that they won't be criminals anymore? So that they compensate their victims somehow? Or just because we are too primitive to get past the anger we have that demands that we make ourselves feel better by striking back.
Mmm...punishment does little to rehabilitate. But I'm not interested in rehabilitating everybody. And I have no particular problem with stooping to Peterson's level as we inject him with nastiness for his crimes.

But why? Because it's "right?" "Fair?" Makes you feel good to make a bad person suffer? Because it's wrong for someone to cause another person pain and not suffer pain themselves?

I'm not saying I know the answer, I jusr wonder what it is that make sus feel we have to punish, and why we think that it's not only ok, but necessary.

Octopus Overlords

Bye Bye Scott (Yahoo-AP)

Should Scott Peterson Be Executed?