Bye Bye Scott (Yahoo-AP)

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:23 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&t ... erson_Case

Sucks to be him.

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:26 pm

Just to be picky with you Yankeeman, I'll say I will not answer your poll the way it's worded. Regardless of whether we execute him, eventually he will die - as will we all.
But to try to answer, I oppose the death penalty (for several reasons, some "ethical", some "economic"), so *no*, I don't think he should be executed.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:29 pm

I voted YES.

I don't oppose the death penalty.

The jury did their job, the rest is history.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:32 pm

Just to be picky with you Yankeeman, I'll say I will not answer your poll the way it's worded. Regardless of whether we execute him, eventually he will die - as will we all.

I will allow you to be picky.

*PM*

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:38 pm

Hell no. Not unless everone convicted of at minimum 1 first degree and 1 second degree murder are also executed.

lokiju · Post by **lokiju** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:10 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:
Just to be picky with you Yankeeman, I'll say I will not answer your poll the way it's worded. Regardless of whether we execute him, eventually he will die - as will we all.
I will allow you to be picky. *PM*

Like you have a choice! So my question is, did you post this because you want him to fry?

MHS · Post by **MHS** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:21 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:Sucks to be him.

Sucks more to be his wife and baby.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:24 pm

Here's a question for folks that know more about criminal prosecution and the appeals process more than I:

Isn't the whole conviction in reasonable danger of being overturned by an appeals court?

No body. No murder weapon. Members of the jury departing left and right, including, if I'm remembering correctly, during deliberation the foreman of that jury stepping down, and the jury immediately arriving at a verdict once he'd been replaced.

I'm almost positive this scumbag killed his wife, and have no good wishes for him. But my reading of things on the surface here sure make this look like one that could really snag in the appeals process.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:25 pm

So my question is, did you post this because you want him to fry?

No, it was top story on Yahoo/AP. I dont pad like you.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:26 pm

Sucks more to be his wife and baby

I agree MHS. I think he got what he deserves.

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:54 pm

I'm against the death penalty on ethical and moral grounds. Furthermore in regards to this case, everything was apparently based off circumstancial evidence as triggercut says.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Even tho I am pro death penalty I'll have to say no here.I wasn't on the jury and didn't hear all the facts but from what I heard on the news I wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty from the facts I heard.
Yes I think he was probably guilty but from the evidence I heard on the news(a very unreliable source I admit) I wasn't convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:02 pm

I remember reading a post by MrFed about circumstantial evidence. We often (maybe because of tv shows) think that circumstantial evidence is completely inadequate. But MrFed pointed out that circumstantial evidence can allow one to make reasonable inferences about what happened. If you saw somebody with a sledgehammer go through a door into a previously empty room (which has no other entrances/exits), heard a loud noise, then saw the person leave the room, then saw the sledgehammer sticking out of the wall, all you have is circumstantial evidence that the person you saw before put the sledgehammer in the wall...
I'm not saying the evidence in this trial was either adequate or inadequate, just commenting on the problem of describing evidence in a case as being "just circumstantial".

Spiff · Post by **Spiff** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:03 pm

Damn right he should fry.

BTW - They did find his wife and baby. They washed up on shore not too far from where he said he went fishing on Christmas Evev/Day (whichever).

From everything I heard/read, the case against him was pretty good. His alibi sucked, and his conversations with Amber Fry were pretty damning.

Sorry, Mr. Peterson, but your right to life ended when you killed your wife and unborn child.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:06 pm

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?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:12 pm

Bad Demographic wrote:I remember reading a post by MrFed about circumstantial evidence. We often (maybe because of tv shows) think that circumstantial evidence is completely inadequate. But MrFed pointed out that circumstantial evidence can allow one to make reasonable inferences about what happened. If you saw somebody with a sledgehammer go through a door into a previously empty room (which has no other entrances/exits), heard a loud noise, then saw the person leave the room, then saw the sledgehammer sticking out of the wall, all you have is circumstantial evidence that the person you saw before put the sledgehammer in the wall...
I'm not saying the evidence in this trial was either adequate or inadequate, just commenting on the problem of describing evidence in a case as being "just circumstantial".

You're stepping on my rant, lady!

Isn't the whole conviction in reasonable danger of being overturned by an appeals court?

No body. No murder weapon. Members of the jury departing left and right, including, if I'm remembering correctly, during deliberation the foreman of that jury stepping down, and the jury immediately arriving at a verdict once he'd been replaced.

As to the adequacy of the evidence, I very seriously doubt they are in any trouble. The standard on appeal strongly favors the verdict: the issue will be whether ANY reasonable trier or fact could have found that the evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, taking the evidence below in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Very few cases get overturned for inadequate evidence unless prosecutors overcharge (for instance, charging assault and battery when there was only an assault, charging premeditated murder when there was no evidence of premeditation, etc.)

As for legal errors, I didn't follow it closely enough to be able to give an opinion. Departing jurors generally aren't a problem unless the judge kicked them off and the defense objected to them being kicked off.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:14 pm

Is execution the proper punishment?

Yes. He took away his wifes right to LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and did the same to his unborn child. Fair is fair. He should be executed as well.

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

Yes. Same applies to them. Life sentences are also a drain on the tax payers. Those lower forms of life are not worth keeping around in fancy prisons and get practically the same freedoms we do while they are in prison. That, IMHO, is a slap in the face to the victims family.

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:15 pm

Who are you asking, Lawbeef?
If we could always be 100% sure who murdered another person and could be 100% sure there weren't mitigating circumstances, then maybe I'd be for the death penalty. Maybe. On the other hand, even with the two unlikely suppositions, it could be that I'd be convinced that a) capital punishment falls into the category of "cruel and unusual punishment"; b) that executing murderers simply makes us (via the state) murderers; or c) that it's hypocritical of us to kill somebody for killing. Frankly, even given the two hypotheticals, I'm conflicted. Take away the two "100% sures" and I can't support the death penalty: the racial imbalance is way too suspicious; we've had cases of mistaken identity; we know there have been cases where the FBI crime lab falsified data; there are police departments that have really crappy procedures, etc.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:16 pm

Mr. Fed wrote: You're stepping on my rant, lady!

And when she does it nobody gets engraged.

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:20 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:You're stepping on my rant, lady!

You took too long to get here.

Yankeeman84 wrote:Life sentences are also a drain on the tax payers

From what I understand, the appeals process associated with the death sentence is costlier than life imprisonment.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:24 pm

From what I understand, the appeals process associated with the death sentence is costlier than life imprisonment.

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.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:25 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote: get practically the same freedoms we do while they are in prison

Hello! Welcome to the Sarcazmo Dismissive Response Generator!

For

Amendment 1.5 Nonconsensual anal sex being essential to the spiritual development of any free people, the right of the people to be ass-raped in Stir City shall not be abridged.

Press One!

For

That's no moon! That's a giant eye-rolley-emoticon!

Press Two!

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:29 pm

I hope that the above was worth the time. Mr. Fed it was my opinion. They get all the luxuries we do....TV...Internet....3 or more meals per day...exercise...etc. It is just like your mom telling you that you cant go outside. IMHO.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:30 pm

My life is pointless.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:32 pm

Bad Demographic wrote:Who are you asking, Lawbeef?

Anyone really. Don't mean to derail (re: Scott Peterson specifically) but I was curious if the hangup for most people was evidence in this particular case or capital punishment in general.

Yankeeman84 wrote:Yes. He took away his wifes right to LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and did the same to his unborn child. Fair is fair. He should be executed as well.

I'm actually right on the fence on this one. I'd through out all that "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" appeal-to-the-forefathers bunk though. Stick with life, it's enough.

I feel that if someone embezzles $10,000 from my bank account, I want them to pay me back the $10,000, not go to jail for 4 years because they spent it all. I feel that if someone beat the living shit out of me because they were drunk, I should be allowed to do the same, while drunk. But when it comes to murder it's tough. There is no equitable payback to make things right (or even palletable). Even disregarding how you can only kill someone who committed multiple murders once, killing them at all does nothing for the victims or their families. It saves the taxpayer some money. With all that in mind, it's hard to support the death penalty in a perfect vaccum, let alone in the real world where guilt is often judged by a jury. However there is that innate sense of justice that demands like punishment, the universal eye-for-an-eye that drives us.

Finally, where does the line get drawn? Does the drunk truck driver who killed a van full of kids get the death penalty? The plant manager who skipped QA on a widget that when faulty resulted in an airline crash? I'm not arguing slipperly slope here, but rather that there is no clear-cut line. I imagine it would stay at premeditation, but then we're punishing thought and not action. How can you invoke "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" as sacred but then only if there was intent and forethought to take it away?

EDIT: UBB

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:32 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:My life is pointless.

But is your head?

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:32 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:I hope that the above was worth the time. Mr. Fed it was my opinion. They get all the luxuries we do....TV...Internet....3 or more meals per day...exercise...etc. It is just like your mom telling you that you cant go outside. IMHO.

Well, you might consider regularly getting butt-raped by Bubba to be a luxury...

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:34 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:I hope that the above was worth the time. Mr. Fed it was my opinion. They get all the luxuries we do....TV...Internet....3 or more meals per day...exercise...etc. It is just like your mom telling you that you cant go outside. IMHO.

(emphasis added is mine)
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think that you are hugely incorrect on this. But, that's just my opinion.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:38 pm

Well, you might consider regularly getting butt-raped by Bubba to be a luxury...

Only in Alabama.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:39 pm

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think that you are hugely incorrect on this. But, that's just my opinion.

Thank you BD for your kindness. The mom thing was the only thing I can think up at the moment since I am trying to balance a general ledger and my eyes are bloodshot.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:40 pm

My life is pointless.

As long as I am around Mr. Fed....your life will never be pointless!

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:40 pm

Can we send OJ to get it also? Just wondering.

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:43 pm

I'm actually right on the fence on this one. I'd through out all that "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" appeal-to-the-forefathers bunk though. Stick with life, it's enough.

I feel that if someone embezzles $10,000 from my bank account, I want them to pay me back the $10,000, not go to jail for 4 years because they spent it all. I feel that if someone beat the living shit out of me because they were drunk, I should be allowed to do the same, while drunk. But when it comes to murder it's tough. There is no equitable payback to make things right (or even palletable). Even disregarding how you can only kill someone who committed multiple murders once, killing them at all does nothing for the victims or their families. It saves the taxpayer some money. With all that in mind, it's hard to support the death penalty in a perfect vaccum, let alone in the real world where guilt is often judged by a jury. However there is that innate sense of justice that demands like punishment, the universal eye-for-an-eye that drives us.

Finally, where does the line get drawn? Does the drunk truck driver who killed a van full of kids get the death penalty? The plant manager who skipped QA on a widget that when faulty resulted in an airline crash? I'm not arguing slipperly slope here, but rather that there is no clear-cut line. I imagine it would stay at premeditation, but then we're punishing thought and not action. How can you invoke "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" as sacred but then only if there was intent and forethought to take it away?

Believe it or not LB, I used think along the same line as you. I still question and used to be against the death penalty at times and insane sentences (like drug posession) but I did some report on the DP and the sentencing process and I came to the conclusion where I am today.

Disregard the prison stuff though.

(EDIT: added a word)

Gedd · Post by **Gedd** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:47 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:EDIT: UBB

Whoa. Flashback.

Carry on.

(for the record, it's BBCode now.)

Bad Demographic · Post by **Bad Demographic** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:48 pm

Yankeeman84 wrote:
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think that you are hugely incorrect on this. But, that's just my opinion.
Thank you BD for your kindness. The mom thing was the only thing I can think up at the moment since I am trying to balance a general ledger and my eyes are bloodshot.

I didn't want to sound like I thought you were stupid or that your opinion was worthless. The death penalty is a hot topic and one where tempers can easily flare. I find it very interesting that at least two of my friends who are against the death penalty have reasons very different from mine. And even that difference can start arguments - even though we're all on the "same side".

Yankeeman84 · Post by **Yankeeman84** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:53 pm

I didn't want to sound like I thought you were stupid or that your opinion was worthless. The death penalty is a hot topic and one where tempers can easily flare. I find it very interesting that at least two of my friends who are against the death penalty have reasons very different from mine. And even that difference can start arguments - even though we're all on the "same side".

No trouble at all BD. Just a friendly discussion. I try not to argue about it since I really dont have a dog in the hunt but I think it is interesting though....the different opinions.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:56 pm

Bad Demographic wrote:Just to be picky with you Yankeeman, I'll say I will not answer your poll the way it's worded. Regardless of whether we execute him, eventually he will die - as will we all.
But to try to answer, I oppose the death penalty (for several reasons, some "ethical", some "economic"), so *no*, I don't think he should be executed.

Word.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:59 pm

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.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:39 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.

In a "perfect" world where we didn't have the possibilities of poor legal representation, mistaken identity, possible racial inequities in capital punishment sentencing, I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty in response to person's willful disregard for another's life. And yes, it would satisfy a need for vengence on my part if it was a loved one who was killed in a robbery, drive by shooting, etc.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 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 heart you.

Octopus Overlords

Bye Bye Scott (Yahoo-AP)

Should Scott Peterson Be Executed?

Bye Bye Scott (Yahoo-AP)

Re: Bye Bye Scott (Yahoo-AP)