Am I the only Liberal who's not bothered by the Peterson verdict?

[hollywood926]

I guess I'd generally say that I wish the death penalty wasn't an option in the first place, BUT I'm not really bothered by this at all. Contrary to what some of you have posted, I think the odds that he is innocent are astronomical. Circumstancial evidence is great evidence, particularly when you have a thousand pieces of it.

And I don't think stewing in prison for life is a worse punishment than death, as many believe. One gets accustomed to the lifestyle prison provides, and finds ways to make himself useful and fulfilled. He can read, he can exercise, he can play games, he can dream, he can remember, he can "find religion." Lacy gets to do none of that.

I think Scott Peterson's life should end. NOW.

[Bunny]

1. I disagree with the death penalty.

But there's very little doubt in my mind that he did this crime. So life without parole would have been okay with me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

186. A Declaration of Life....i signed and had filed this document.............

A Declaration of Life

I, the undersigned, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, do hereby in the presence of witnesses make this Declaration of Life,

I believe that the killing of one human being by another is morally wrong.

I believe it is morally wrong for any state or other governmental entity to take the life of a human being for any reason

I believe that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime and serves only the purpose of revenge.

THEREFORE, I hereby declare that should I die as a result of a violent crime, I request that the person or persons found guilty of homicide for my killing not be subject to or put in jeopardy of the death penalty under any circumstances, no matter how heinous their crime or how much I may have suffered. The death penalty would only increase my suffering.

I request that the Prosecutor or District Attorney having the jurisdiction of the person or persons alleged to have committed my homicide not file or prosecute an action for capital punishment as a result of my homicide.

I request that this Declaration be made admissible in any trial of any person charged with my homicide, and read and delivered to the jury. I also request the Court to allow this Declaration to be admissible as a statement of the victim at the sentencing of the person or persons charged and convicted of my homicide; and, to pass sentence in accordance with my wishes.

I request that the Governor or other executive officer(s) grant pardon, clemency or take whatever action is necessary to stay and prohibit the carrying out of the execution of any person or persons found guilty of my homicide.

This Declaration is not meant to be, and should not be taken as, a statement that the person or persons who have committed my homicide should go unpunished.

I request that my family and friends take whatever actions are necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Declaration; and, I further request them to take no action contrary to this Declaration.

I request that, should I die under the circumstances as set forth in the Declaration and the death penalty is requested, my family, friends and personal representative deliver copies of this Declaration as follows: to the Prosecutor or District Attorney having jurisdiction over the person or persons charged with my homicide; to the Attorney representing the person or persons charged with my homicide; to the judge presiding over the case involving my homicide; for recording, to the Recorder of the County in which my homicide took place and to the recorder of the County in which the person or persons charged with my homicide are to be tried; to all newspapers, radio and television stations of general circulation in the County in which my homicide took place and the County in which the person or persons charged with my homicide are to be tried; and, to any other person, persons or entities my family, friends or personal representative deem appropriate in order to carry out my wishes as set forth herein.

I affirm under the pains and penalties for perjury that the above Declaration of Life is true.

WITNESS

_________________________

_________________________ printed name

DECLARANT

_________________________

_________________________
printed name
_________________________
Social Security Number

STATE OF ____________________)

COUNTY OF __________________)

Before me, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared the Declarant and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument this_______________day of ______________ 20___.

WITNESS my hand and notarial seal.

__________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

__________________________
Printed Name

My commission expires: ___________________ County of Residence:______________________

Please send a copy of this notarized form to: Cherish Life Circle, Convent of Mercy, 273 Willoughby Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11205


----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Friends Committee to Abolish the Death Penalty is a nationwide coalition of Friends concerned with capital punishment. The purposes of the Committee are to: 1) advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, 2) foster communication and support among Friends throughout the country, 3) encourage increased activism in Friends Meetings, and 4) nurture the process of victim-victimizer reconciliation in the light of God's love.

The FCADP publishes a quarterly newsletter, THE QUAKER ABOLITIONIST. For more information, email to: [e-mail] Last modified: Mon May 14 11:14:58 EDT 2001

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I'm so comforted to know liberals like killing people too

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. yes isn't it refreshing to see some agree with "state murder"

[BlueEyedSon]

19. Would you not have had the US enter WW2?

Just curious.

I didn't know that being liberal was a tantamount to a personal referendum on pure pacifism.

[forgethell]

Not a question of 'liking'

to kill people. Only sociopaths 'like' to kill people.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

3. I was indifferent

until I saw his giggle yesterday. What a sick f*ck!

[Bleacher Creature]

12. His giggle??

I've been purposely avoiding this story -- what kind of giggle?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

30. When the verdict was announced, he giggled

n/t

[northzax]

176. so basically, you are in favour of his execution

because he didn't have the 'right' emotional outlook at the trial? that's sorta what one of the jurors said, that it was easy to execute him because he didn't 'look sad enough'

that's a pretty weak reason to kill someone, don't you think?

[Royal Observer]

180. Don't worry

It is not whether or not he lives or dies. It's a matter of where he will spend his time in prison. He'll spend his time in solitary where he will be safer than in the general population.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

4. I'm against the death penalty,

but I won't be losing any sleep over the Peterson verdict and punishment.

[springhill]

5. Good for you......

We have no business deciding who lives and dies. It's sick.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

139. If you people read the board more carefully

You'll see there's MUCH more posts lamenting the bloodthirst in the general populace's reaction than than the sentence itself.

And that's right, because the former is much more disturbing than the latter -- whether you are pro-DP or not.

[Fleshdancer]

7. I'm not bothered

I'm extremely apathetic about this case in general...probably because it was on the news all the time. If I wanted to know every tiny detail about a trial, I'd watch court tv.

on edit: If she were my daughter, I would have killed him myself. Not a very liberal concept I know, but it's the truth.

[LiberalinNC]

8. I was surprised yesterday

that the jury voted for death. But I do believe their main reason was because he killed his own child, and that this was a "double" murder.

I don't think I could personally ever send someone off the die but in this case, I could have considered it.

[Feathered Fish]

9. I'm bothered by the coverage

and the circus. I want the media to drop it like a sack of rotten potatoes, but that will never happen.

[babylonsister]

11. I'm also in favor of the death penalty if

it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. You do the crime... And ultimately we all pay for these murderers to take up space in jail.
But in TX it's also been proven that some people who have been put to death were innocent.

[fishwax]

67. Executions cost money too

As does the appeals process required to carry them out. According to all the research I've seen, the death penalty, from capitol trial through appeals to execution, is more costly per individual than is life without parole.

[springhill]

101. Beyond a shadow of a doubt?

How many times does that happen? A person can be convicted because there is no reasonable doubt. And how many of those have been show to be innocent? Too many to name here.

[ComerPerro]

13. I'm not bothered by it, but it's because I don't care

at all.

Should he have been sentenced to death?

Hell if I know. I don't even know if he is guilty or not. (I know he was found guilty, but I haven't tried him myself).

I barely know anything about the case, so I don't know if he deserves death or not.

Normally, I could justify death for someone who kills his wife or child.

Come to think of it, the three minutes spent writing this post is the longest amount of time I have spent thinking about the case.

[greekspeak]

141. I'm with you....this story was just a handy decoy when Bu$hCo screwed up

Its like Wardrobe Malfunction, Kobe, Jacko, etc. None of them matter a hoot in the shadow of ShrubCoGate.

[trotsky]

14. Never OK.

There may have been "a thousand pieces" of circumstantial evidence, but we now know there have been death penalty prosecutions where even EYEWITNESSES were wrong.

I agree that Scott Peterson is MOST LIKELY guilty of a horrendous violent crime. But as long as there is a chance - even the most remote one - that he is innocent, it is morally unacceptable to put him to death.

Not to mention - isn't the death penalty supposed to be a deterrent? Why are there still murders in states that have it then?

[hollywood926]

42. I don't think the death penalty deters crime, but

I do think some people deserve it.

[trotsky]

44. Deserve it? Yes. But can a flawed human system deliver it?

Absolutely not.

[forgethell]

58. In this imperfect world;

there's always a chance that we can make a mistake. Nothing can be accomplished if everything has to be 100% perfect. For any crime, murder included, the law requires proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt." Not "no doubt at all". So, yes, IMO, it is morally acceptable to put him to death.

Deterrence? How do you know how many murders may have been prevented by people who were unwilling to face the death penalty? Studies have shown that it is not the severity of punishment, but the certainty of it that deters unwanted behavior, (No, I don't have a link, sorry). So, for it to be a deterrent, it would have to be applied at a much faster rate than it is currently. How many thousands of murders take place annually? How many executions take place? How long does it take for the execution to take place after the conviction?

MERRY CHRISTMAS

[SOS]

76. How about 117 mistakes?

"Since 1973, 117 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation."

[forgethell]

81. But they WEREN'T executed;

were they? The system finally worked. Perfect certainty is unattainable. Does that mean that nothing can be done? We annot give a man's life back, but we canot give back years spent in prison, either.

That being said, any evidence of innocence should be considered even at the last minute. Trivial pursuits of technical challenges should not be.

[SOS]

132. Actually the system failed completely

These men were innocent. They were sentenced to death. A total failure.
It was through the efforts of people outside the system that many of these men were spared. The Innocence Project and Northwestern law students have saved some of the innocent. Usually the system won't even listen to the new evidence, so the outsiders have to go to the media. Only then is the system shamed into doing the right thing.

[forgethell]

142. Outsiders are par tof the system.

Checks & balances

[trotsky]

79. So what you're saying is,

screw the possibility of mistakes, we need to execute MORE people and we need to execute them FASTER.

:eyes:

I'm sorry, but when it comes to taking someone's life, it SHOULD be "no doubt at all." A person who serves prison time can always be released if the evidence eventually leads to acquittal. Ain't so for those who are executed.

[forgethell]

84. I'm just saying

that if you want the deterrence to work, you have to apply the penalty.

I do not believe that a person should be executed if there is any reasonable doubt that they did it. But they shouldn't be convicted in the first place in that case. By 'reasonaable doubt" I do not mean tin-foil hat theories put forth by slimy defense lawyers with no evidence at all to back it up.

Any evidence at all that comes up later to show innocence should be considered.

But, yes, I believe it should be applied more frequently, and with less delay due to legal technicalities. However, police misconduct, withholding of evidence, etc. should be punished as felonies in their own right.

[trotsky]

85. Explain please.

Any evidence at all that comes up later to show innocence should be considered.

What if they've already been executed? Too bad?

[forgethell]

97. That would be unfortunate.

Still I believe that basic concepts of justice require that the death penalty be applied for the most heinous crimes. We are only human, so we can only do the best we can. But for some crimes, anything less than death is a miscarriage of justice, IMO.

Sorry, we can't see eye-to-eye, but to refuse to do something because of the possibility of making a mistake means that nothing can be done.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

[trotsky]

116. But I'm not "refus[ing] to do something."

I'm saying that we just don't execute someone. Lock 'em up for life, no possiblity of parole. At least in that case you have the chance to set them free if evidence of their innocence surfaces.

You make it sound like if someone is convicted of murder, I'd set them free instead of executing them.

On edit: BTW - what if it was YOU who had been wrongfully convicted? Would you still say "Oh well, shit happens!"???

[forgethell]

118. Well, we'll

have to agree to disagree. I'm unabashedly in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes.

As for setting them free, instead. There are jail breaks, there is parole. In some countries, Mexico springs to mind, they will not allow a life without parole sentence.

AS for me being wrongfully convicted: Well, naturally I wouldn't like that one bit. I would do everything in my power to get off. But I would do that if I were guilty, too, most probably. Although I like to think I'd take my punishment manfully, maybe not.
but that doesn't change the correctness of the death penalty for those who are convicted of heinous crimes.

Anyway, a lot of the anti-death penalty rhetoric on this board is hypocritical (I'm not accusing you, as I don't know anything against you). I've seen several posters complaining about the death penalty in one forum and calling for the execution of the traitor Bush in another. That's like being a whore, but only if the price is high enough. You are either for the death penalty, or you are against it, but you can't be both.

[trotsky]

155. You continue to use a strawman.

I personally believe that there have been crimes so horrible, so inexcusable, that the guilty party deserves to die. So much of your post above doesn't apply whatsoever.

But what I am saying is that in a PROVEN flawed process such as a criminal trial, the chance for error - no matter how slight - must be taken into consideration when delivering the ultimate punishment.

I think because of that, we cannot execute anyone. Because of the error factor, as long as we allow the death penalty, we WILL execute innocent people. So what do we define as the cutoff? If we execute one innocent person for every guilty person, I'm guessing that even the most ardent death penalty proponent would find that unacceptable. So how about 1 for every 100? For every thousand? Million? Where do you draw the line? What's acceptable?

I don't think we can draw that line. Any taking of an innocent person's life is abhorrent and not something I want on my hands.

[forgethell]

156. Strawmen? I don't think so.

Yes, we will make mistakes in giving any punishment. Nevertheless, as moral creatures, we must make decisions, and live with the consequences. The death penalty IS moral and right for certain crimes. It is, I think necessary, both as a punishment, and frankly, revenge for the victim and his family. Yeah, yeah, I know. You're not supposed to think that. But I am a free thinker.

We have to accept the possibility of making mistakes in inflicting death. We must strive to keep them to a minimum, and always, always ,be willing to reconsider upon presentation of new evidence. But the standard of "no doubt" is impossible to reach. To apply it would mean the end of the death penalty, a position that I find morally objectionable. But no mistakes are acceptable, it's just that they will occur, we being human.

But, if that standard is applied to the death penalty, why not to life-without-parole, then to progressively lesser penalties until finally we get to, "You've been a bad boy, go and sin no more". And that will stop how many crimes??

I could go into a lot deeper, and more rigorous, detail, but I don't think I'll change your mind. And I think we know each others positions.

[trotsky]

157. From strawman to slippery slope.

You're on a fallacious roll, aren't you?

This is about the death penalty only. There is no reason to bring any other punishments into question as you did, unless you do it solely to distract from the point at hand with a slippery slope fallacy.

No, you won't change my mind. I absolutely refuse to allow "mistakes", as you call them, that result in the intentional destruction of an innocent person's life.

*I* wouldn't want to be in that position, and so I don't feel justified allowing anyone else to be in it either. Believing otherwise would be hypocrisy.

[forgethell]

160. OK, I'll withdraw

the 'slippery slope' argument.

But there is nothing fallacious about the rest of it. Here is the difference: You are against the death penalty in all cases because you are afraid of making a mistake. I am against making a mistake, but do not feel that the possibility of doing so invalidates the justice of inflicting the death penalty on the guilty.

You are asking for perfection; I am asking only for continuous improvement, and a striving for perfection.


And I believe that if the "evolving standards of decency" are in the direction of no capital punishment, then it is the majority of the people, or their elected representatives, not unaccountable judges inflicting their own visions on the rest of us, that should determine that.

Get the death penalty eliminated through the legislature, you won't hear any complaints from me.

But, to return to the original question of this thread: Assuming you could know absolutely certainly without a scintilla of doubt that Scott did it, would you inflict the death penalty on him???

[trotsky]

165. I'm not asking for perfection.

In fact, I know it can never be attained, and that's why I am against the death penalty.

If it were possible to completely ascertain that Scott Peterson killed his wife, then yes, I would be in favor of his execution. But where we will get bogged down is what constitutes "a scintilla of doubt"? It's a matter of personal judgement - how much error will you tolerate? And as I have stated repeatedly, when it comes to innocent human lives, I won't tolerate any.

[forgethell]

172. Let me ask you this:

we all can agree, I think, even the most bone-headed Freeper, that innocent people are being killed in Iraq.

And many people use that fact as an argument against the war in Iraq. I disagree, completely. Let me state right out front that I disapprove of the war in Iraq. But if a war is a just war, then the fact that innocent people are killed in it is irrelevant, because a war cannot be fought, in the real world, that does not kill innocent people. It may be an argument against the particular tactics or weapons that are being used. It may be an argument against the people conducting the war. But it is not an argument against the justness or necessity of the war, which must be justified or invalidated on other grounds.

In the same way, the fact that innocent people may be put to death does not invalidate the justice of capital punishment. It is an argument for re-examining any verdict upon the presentation of new evidence.

It is obvious to me that we see the fundamental nature of the world in different ways. As our assumptions concerning morality are different, even the most rigorous logic on both sides will lead us to different conclusions.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

[trotsky]

174. I like that analogy.

Because it illustrates the weakness of your position.

A modern war, save Chimpy's Quest for Oil, is generally fought to truly liberate a people from a dictator or other threat to their lives.

In other words, people ARE dying and in order to stop the dying, the conflict will unfortunately claim some innocent lives. Say "X" is the death rate under the threat, and "Y" is the number of deaths caused by war.

No matter how big Y is, over enough time, X per year will eventually exceed it. So overall you have reduced the amount of innocent deaths. (Provided the threat would not have gone away peacefully on its own, or via a method that takes fewer lives, of course.) I can accept that.

However, consider a convicted murderer on death row. If they are actually guilty of murder, then the murders will stop whether they are put to death or given life without parole, because they're locked up away from society. You have accomplished the same task either way.

But if the person convicted is innocent, you gain nothing from their execution. You actually add one person to the tally of innocent victims while not removing the threat that prompted it. And so I would say that situation differs greatly from your example of war.

[forgethell]

179. Well,

in prison they can kill other inmates, or guards, or escape, or be paroled. Further, despite what "studies" show, there is a deterrent effect to the death penalty, IMO. It simply seems impossible that man, who as Marx teaches us, makes all decisions on an economic basis, would fail to take into account the economic consequences to himself of paying the death penalty for his actions. Of course, if the risk factor is slight, he may choose to do so. And at the smalll rate of executions in this country, the risk factor is slight, indeed.

Of course, no thouoght of consequences will attend the "crime of passion", where a murderous rage is in control of the perpetrator. So it won't deter every murder. But watch the crime rates drop.

[trotsky]

183. Watch crime rates drop, indeed.

Compare crime rates in states that have the death penalty to those that don't. You will find some very interesting numbers.

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveRs4.html
Texas moved from its first execution after Furman in 1982 to becoming the national leader in the use of the death penalty. During the same period, the state also experienced a tremendous growth in its violent crime rate. From 1982 to 1991, the national crime rate rose by 5%. In the same period, the Texas crime rate rose by 24%, and the violent crime rate in Texas rose by nearly 46%. In Texas, more people die from gunshot wounds than traffic accidents.

So from that we see that in a state that more aggressively pursued the death penalty (in other words, came closer to your "ideal"), crime rates rose faster than the national average. How do you reconcile your beliefs with that fact?

[forgethell]

185. I'll have to

get back with you. The boss dropped a project in my lap yesterday, so break time is over. In the meant ime, I'll kep it kiked.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

[Forkboy]

87. forget hell...we're living in it here

[forgethell]

98. Yes??

What are you trying to say?

MERRY CHRISTMAS

[Forkboy]

99. a play on words

just amusing myself.

[hollywood926]

119. The 12 Jurors Had No Doubt....

and I can't quite figure out the people who do....maybe they are people who think we should only execute a murderer if he leaves a videotape of the incident. Oh, but wait...it could be a doctored videotape.

WHO HAS DOUBT???

[trotsky]

143. I do not doubt that there are SOME totally open-and-shut cases.

But even for those I would prefer life in prison for the offender, for the sake of no jury ever having to figure out where that line is.

[Kitka]

167. I agree with you completely.

[Royal Observer]

182. No, for me

the death penalty and incarceration are punishment.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. And, What IF. . .

. . .and yes, this is an IF, he didn't actually do it. What IF, the circumstantial evidence works out to be similar to the huge body of circumstantial evidence that convicted the Ford Heights guys here in Illinois. All of them on Death Row for years. Then, voila, actual hard evidence that THEY DIDN'T DO IT!

Everyone thought they had the right guys. Everyone who followed the case thought they did it. Everyone thought they were getting what they deserved, and they DIDN'T DO IT!

Your moral certitude is wholly misplaced.
The Professor

[hollywood926]

46. What if what if what if....

There is no WHAT IF. Of course he did it. And he'll be telling Diane Sawyer why he did it next year on Primetime Live, as soon as he realizes that the only thing that will keep him alive is remorse.

Gee, what if Karl Rove really didn't have anything to do with the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry?

Argh.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. Unbrilliant

Like i said, you don't know much about what's happened in Illinois. Over a dozen people on death row that EVERYONE thought, just like you, did it. They were ALL wrong! They DIDN'T do it. Cruz and Hernandez, Bullock, The Ford Heights 7, etc., etc., etc. It's why George Ryan did the only honorable thing in his tenure as governor and placed a DP moratorium.

The system is so screwed up that people who DIDN'T do it were on death row. The system is not working and you're certitude that he did it is utterly meaningless.

Next time try coming up with something more substantive than Karl Rove and Swift Boats. That is comparing apples and dinosaurs.
The Professor

[Bunny]

66. The situation in Illinois is what specifically turned me against the death

penalty. I used to be all for it, I thought they should all fry. After the Illinois cases came up, I saw it for what it was, and I've been anti-DP ever since. There is too much risk of killing an innocent person, and the state should not be in that kind of business.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. We Came AWFULLLY, AWFULLY Close

One of our innocents was exonherated 48 hours before his appointment with the needle. 48 hours!!!
The Professor

[Bunny]

71. God! That is very scary.

The whole Illinois story is so inspirational. I don't understand why other states are so convinced that mistakes could not possibly occur in their jurisdictions.

On edit: Professor - were you personally involved in the Illinois cases? I was wondering... I remember hearing about Rolando Cruz and the Nicarico girl (was that her name?) and how someone else actually confessed to the crime, but they still had to move heaven and earth to get Cruz' conviction thrown out.

[Garbo 2004]

114. And in those cases those people only were eventually vindicated due

to extraordinary work by others. The Innocence Project and others like that.

In at least one of the cases in Illinois I think it was it was shown that the DA and others had withheld evidence that would have exonerated the accused and perhaps even manufactured evidence (I can't recall all the details) to secure convictions.

Oh there was an investigation and as I recall those who had deliberately railroaded innocent men to prison and who themselves should have been convicted of criminal charges, got off without a scratch.

[ProfessorGAC]

153. You Are Correct

Actually it was two case. Rolando Cruz and Anthony Porter both involved questionable prosecutorial actions that not only withheld information from the jury, but from the defense attorneys as well.

In the case of Cruz, the prosecutors had a confession from another guy already in custody who knew EVERY detail of the abduction and murder. Because he wanted immunity from a death sentence to testify that way, they refused and railroaded Cruz and Hernandez. Both of these guys were kind of low lifes, but they were not guilty of the murder of which they were convicted.

Same with Anthony Porter. Prosecutors withheld evidence that the person who "eyewitnessed" the shooting knew the other guy suspected, that other people with the eyewitness did not ID Porter as the shooter, and that a COP saw Porter in a different place at the time of the shooting.

The system is broken, and doesn't appear to be fixable enough to allow the DP to continue here.
The Professor

[Djinn]

127. Thank God

that you wont be serving on my jury should I ever be accused of a crime

"There is no WHAT IF. Of course he did it."

are you omniscient?

[KitchenWitch]

17. I am not surprised at the verdict and penalty

Normally I am not pro-death penalty, and I do not live in a state that has the death penalty anyway, but I am neither surprised, nor terribly upset about the verdict. An otherwise healthy mother and wanted (by the mother at least) child were murdered. It is a terrible tragedy, and the mounds of circumstantial evidence certainly pointed to Scott Peterson.

The only time one can convict on anything other than "circumstantial" evidence is if there is a witness. In this case, there was no witness to the murder, no witness to the disposal of the bodies, therefore all the evidence, by definition, was circumstantial.

[VassarGrad]

18. murder is murder

whether it's done by a husband or by the state -- neither is morally justifiable.

how can we respect life when we sanction death?

[luaneryder]

35. Absolutely

It is not a deterrent and the blood ends upon everyone's hands. How many that are thrilled with this verdict are dead set against abortion in any and all cases? A boatload I'd be willing to bet.

BTW, welcome to DU.

[Midlodemocrat]

56. Exactly.

Perhaps state sanctioned murder is one of the reasons so many Americans are complacent about the murders in Iraq.

[forgethell]

60. Murder is a legal concept;

not just the taking of a life.

[Walt Starr]

20. Sorry, but the jury let Peterson off easy

If they had given him life imprisonment with no chance of parole instead, he would have been placed in General Population. Peterson would have been tortured endlessly and finally would have been killed in that environment.

As it is, he gets an easy life for at least a decade and then an easy death, no pain whatsoever.

They gave him the easier sentence to bear.

[samtob]

68. You are correct, I would only add

his chances for appeal are much greater with the death penalty being imposed.

[IrateCitizen]

21. I think national fascination with this one single case should end. NOW.

I mean, the death of that young woman was a tragedy to all those who knew her -- but please tell me exactly how this case directly or indirectly affects our daily lives.

I don't believe it affects our lives one single iota. And the media's fascination with this case has repeatedly crowded out more important (although less "sexy") news coverage that DOES affect our daily lives.

[BlueEyedSon]

22. I think the fact that the trial is over is good for the media.

Not that they won't find another inconsequential distraction....

[bullimiami]

23. Sorry no I dont share your feelings.

First, I oppose the death penalty. State exercised revenge is bad for society and bad for government.

Second, Although I am sure he is guilty, there is that tiniest of chances that in the future some evidence 'could' come to light which might impact the case.

Thirdly, I think, he is insane, ability to commit the crime alone precludes any form of sanity. No, he is not raving or drooling and he seems coherent but there is something seriously wrong within his brain.

[immoderate]

40. Great point.

Comes down to, what's our definition of insanity? His actions could not be defined as those of a sane person.

--IMM

[rock]

24. He may be as guilty as all hell

but I do not perceive that the prosecution proved their case. I am against the death penalty anyway.

[rodeodance]

36. there is enough killing in this world-----hard labor such as dregging the

bay for litter (bodies) would do him fine for the rest of his life!!

[GiovanniC]

25. I Have Big Problems With the Death Penalty

And I guess I didn't follow this case as much as CNN and Court TV wanted me to. Nancy "Everybody Is Guilty!" Grace says he was guilty, but I never heard a lot of evidence that really proved that. Maybe I shouldn't have an opinion since I don't know everything about this case. But it seems like, from what I've heard, the jury convicted him and sentenced him to the death penalty because they were pretty sure that he had probably killed his pregnant wife. And maybe he did.

But I'm so old, I remember when you had to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that was just to go to JAIL, let alone be killed. I wouldn't want to be killed because 12 of my so-called "peers" thought I had probably done something. And remember, if you're ever charged with a crime, any random jury theoretically is going to be composed of 6 people who couldn't be bothered to vote and 3 more who voted for Bush. That means you get 3 smart people, 3 dumb people, and 6 people who couldn't be bothered to give a damn. I wouldn't want that group choosing whether I get the chair for something I might have done.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. Crazy me. I'm only 24 and I remember that old system too.

I'm ashamed that it's been dumped in favor of guilty until proven innocent. We've spent far too much time watching Law and Order and forgotten how easy it is for a government to abuse its power and incarcerate innocent people.

[northzax]

181. and don't forget death qualified juries

the juries in DP cases are screened for any who might have qualms about imposing the sentance. that rules out another half the population.

There is only one way to make the death penalty fair. Juries shouold not impose it. It shold be inextricably linked to first degree murder convictions. Why is one murder more heinous than another? because the victim was cute and white? whatever. you commit first degree murder and are convicted, you die. that's it. If you are tried for murder of any kind, the prosecution must put second degree murder and first degree on the table at trial. Let the jury decide between ten years and death. that should be the choice. take it out of the hands of prosecutors. If it is first degree murder, then the jury shold not have the choice to spare a life, it should be death for everyone, not just the ones the jury doesn't like.

10-20 years for second degree murder or death. simple choice, make the juries decide that. then it's much more fair.

[illflem]

26. I don't oppose the death penalty

but feel a more appropriate punishment for Peterson would have life with a 300 lb Haitian cellmate named Bobo.

[StClone]

27. I have little time for High profile crime "News"

Peterson is guilty and he will fret and stew over his fate in prison. If he has a conscience this is equal in punishment as a quick death. He will be threatened, beaten and raped, no doubt. He is fresh meat and if they don't protect him in prison his life will be rather hellish.

This is not news and I hope it disappears quickly.

[Cerridwen]

Why Do We Kill People

Who Kill People to Show People That Killing People is Wrong?

[illflem]

28. I don't oppose the death penalty

but feel a more appropriate punishment for Peterson would have life with a 300 lb Haitian cellmate named Bobo.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

29. Another thing

He most likely won't be put to death anyway. I think I heard California's only executed about two people in the last twenty years.

[Chef]

31. DeathPenalty

I am always bothered by the state thinking it has to power to execute someone no mater how vile the crime. Once you say that I oppose the penalty, but this one is so bad he deserves to die, you have crossed over the edge where you are free to kill the guilty with the innocent. From what little I have seen, this guy appears to be as bad as they come, but if you think killing him makes everything ok, I'm not with you on this.

[napi21]

32. I don't think it really mattered if Scott got LWOP or Death.

Pay attention to the stats. 600+ people on death row in Calif, and most of 'em will die of old age there without ever seeing the needle.

I was very impressed with the throught process the 3 jurors talked about. I do believe they all paid close attention to all the testimoney and evidence, put it all together, and made their decision. You mention circumstantial evidence and no eye whitnesses. Remember, most of the convicts who have been released due to DNA proof, after serving years on Death Row, where convicted on EYE WHITNESS TESTIMONEY! Short of having a crime on video tape, very little evidence is indisputable.

Stewing in prison for life doesn't differ much from the death penalty, especially in Calif. On Death Row, there is more security and less liklihood of Scott getting bumped off by another inmate, but will for sure be stewing there for a very long time!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. You may or may not be. Personally, I'm bothered by even the "guilty" part

I think we're in a society were we now live by "guilty until proven innocent" and not the other way around. We shouldn't have a system where you can convict when you're 75% or 95% sure that someone did it. You have to be 100% certain that someone committed a crime before you convict them.

I also worry that if Peterson was black that the trial wouldn't have even taken as long as it has and he'd already have been convicted.

And even after all of that, I have major issues in issuing the death penalty only on circumstantial evidence. When the system breaks down, there needs to be something in place to ensure there's a way to make things right if new evidence surfaces, and once you kill someone, you can never make it right again.

[bowens43]

34. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

The death penalty is wrong. Period.

[forgethell]

65. Even for *BusH* ?

'Cause that's not what I'm hearing elsewhere on this board.

[dbfl33040]

37. not bothered

I'm not bothered by it.... Mr Peterson got what he deserved!!!!!!!!!

[UdoKier]

39. Well, I'm conflicted.

I'm intensely annoyed that the media keeps trying to focus my attention on this murder case that's totally irrelevant to my life.

On the other hand, from what I understand, a man has been convicted and possibly sentenced to death with NO EVIDENCE. That does disturb me. The media circus around this case has obviously convinced you that the man is guilty, and I wouldn't be surprised if the jury was swayed by it too.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is tantamount to our free society, and seeing that eroded by these phony show trials is deeply disturbing.

And since you would so blithely kill a man whose guilt you have seen no evidence of, I think you should personally volunteer to go pull the lever on the gas chamber. In fact, I think you should be allowed to pull the trigger and shoot him in the head and feel the warm spray of blood on your face, so that YOU can be the one who gets to wrestle with the doubts later on whether you really killed the right guy.

But this is the state of California, and executions take decades here. He is more likely to die of old age in prison. Tough luck.

[Bunny]

43. Your premise is wrong.

He was NOT convicted on NO evidence. There was a ton of circumstantial evidence involved. Use of this type of evidence is permitted in America.

[UdoKier]

45. There was no damning physical evidence.

It may have been enough to convince me personally on a subjective level, but iff I had been on a jury, I would not have been able to vote to convict without SOME physical evidence.

[Bunny]

47. I guess in your world a lot of murderers will go free then.

Plenty of cases are prosecuted and won on circumstantial evidence.

[UdoKier]

50. In my world, innocent men would not be executed.

Apparently you would be okay with that?

[Bunny]

51. Show me where I ever said that. I'll save you the time - you can't.

Because as I've stated in several of these Peterson threads, I do not believe in the death penalty.

[UdoKier]

52. But you want him locked up without any preponderence of evidence.

It's the same as with Michael Jackson. I may personally think he's guilty, but thus far I haven't seen anything convincing enough that I would vote to convict.

Nice that you don't believe in the death penalty. I don't support it in its present form either. I could, if the standard of proof required for it were much more stringent than that required for life imprisonment, and if strict checks to prevent racial bias and the execution of innocent people were implemented. But I really think it should be for very special cases of the Jeffrey Dahmer variety - not the run-of-the-mill case like Scott Peterson.

[Bunny]

63. I happen to think there was plenty preponderence of evidence.

And the law allows for circumstantial evidence convictions. I guess that's where we'll part company.

[FredScuttle]

103. No murder weapon

no "slam dunk".

[Bunny]

112. Sorry, but "Slam dunk" is not required for conviction. n/t

[FredScuttle]

146. uh, one could say it is

reasonable doubt, you know.

[Bunny]

152. Yeah. I'm familiar with the term.

"Slam dunk" certainly implies more than "reasonable doubt".

[FredScuttle]

168. but a murder weapon would have made this a "slam dunk", no?

n/t

[Bunny]

170. Not necessarily.

How do we know that the murder weapon wasn't Scott's very own hands?

[Midlodemocrat]

57. Executions USED to take decades

...what if Ahnold changes things and starts going the way of TX or VA?

[bobbyboucher]

41. Then you are in the same general category as Peterson.

Someone who thinks killing is OK to acheive certain results. Good on you.

[hollywood926]

117. That's ridiculous...

Sorry, but that's not exactly what I said. I said I'm not upset about it in this case. And you can't compare how his life is going to end to how hers ended. She got the short end of the stick in that deal, wouldn't you say?

There is no case for which you would argue for the death penalty? Ever?

[RPM]

48. I am bothered X 2

1) Haven't bothered to watch the trial, but the circus atmosphere and the general attitude (guilty until proven innocent) surrounding this trial have made me wonder whether the trial was for show - especially in light of the case being based on largly circumstantial evidence (so i hear). More troubling is the idea that people will just be happy enough that he is dead - not that he was properly given due process at trial.

2) Don't like the precedential value of fetus getting legal protection.

Hate the case entirely

[ThorsHammer]

49. I'd prefer hard labor/solitary confinement, but have no sympathy for him

In general, I think the DP system has too many flaws. There are way too many minorities and poor executed, while the rich tend to either get acquitted or get prison time. We've seen way too many cases where people on death row get exonerated down the road. I'd prefer a punitive system based on hard labor/solitary confinement. After killing others, they don't deserve cable TV, workout facilities, etc. Their time would be better spent thinking about what they've done and doing productive work. However, I can't say I'm losing any sleep over some scumbag like Peterson.

[Djinn]

128. visit a maximum security prison sometimes

After killing others, they don't deserve cable TV, workout facilities, etc

they're like a cross between zoo's and war zones, they're brutal and severe, most prisoners would give up the gym/TV in exchange for an enviroment that didn't see bashings, rapes and murder as run of the mill

[ThorsHammer]

162. To clarify, I was responding to the original poster

"One gets accustomed to the lifestyle prison provides, and finds ways to make himself useful and fulfilled. He can read, he can exercise, he can play games, he can dream, he can remember, he can "find religion." Lacy gets to do none of that."

If that's the case, that is way too good for him. After the crime he was convicted of, he needs to be in one of those prisons where he gets minimal recreation time and is forced to think about what he has done, rather than "getting accustomed to the lifestyle prison provides."

[w4rma]

53. I oppose state killings, but could care less about this distraction. (nt)

[Liberty Belle]

54. I agree.

Any innocent person who gets a call that the police just found what might be his wife's body would want to go see the corpse and identify her. Instead, this two-timer dyed his hair, bought a car under a false name, withdrew $10,000 in cash and headed for the Mexican border.

Ordinarily I wouldn't give the death penalty in case with no eyewitness or DNA evidence, but this guy acted so guilty in so many ways that he shot his own defense down the tubes.

Plus he's not a minority being discriminated against.

I won't shed any tears if they fry him.

[Johonny]

55. yes

you are:)

Seriously prison is suppose to a place to hold people that are a general threat to society. It would see no reason why prison is not the right place a person convicted of premeditated murder.

Death penalty is not a form a revenge. Which would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. So while you think it would be giving Peterson his just deserts. Remember revenge is not a factor. How do I know. Well our President told us in the Gore debates that "SWEET, SWEET, revenge is not a factor in why he supports the death penalty". We put people to death in this country because
A) A show of determent to others that may conduct similar behavior.
B) The prevent the convicted person from repeating the act.

Since A is highly skeptical (Ghee why wasn't Peterson deterred by all those other people on death row?). You're left with B. Do I think Peterson if in jail would kill again. Is he a clear and present danger to me. Nope. Nor is he of you.

[Forkboy]

59. swell

You might want to reassess that "liberal" tag you've assigned yourself.


I think Scott Peterson's life should end. NOW.

[buckettgirl]

62. so liberals aren't allowed to think outside of a prescribed stereotype

ya, that's pretty narrowminded....

[Forkboy]

70. Liberals dont wish death NOW

narrowminded? try compassionate :eyes:

[buckettgirl]

72. I do

on * and his cronies. Is that going to happen? NO. Does that make me a bad person? Absolutely not. Does that make me any less liberal? I sure as hell don't think so.

[Forkboy]

83. I sure as hell do think so

[hollywood926]

120. Compassionate towards whom?

You are being compassionate towards the wrong person, don't you think? If your daughter washed up on a beach with no head and no arms, would you direct your compassion to the man who did it? If so, you don't have anything on Mother Theresa. But most of us aren't so saintly. My compassion goes towards the girl's parents and siblings. And they did not request that he be spared the death penalty.

[Forkboy]

129. ok,compassionate is the wrong term

How about being not as bloodthirsty as the killer?

Better?

[buckettgirl]

61. I'm with you

I'm not bothered by it. I am not out for revenge, but people like that don't deserve life. To willfully take the life of your wife and your baby is heinous.
I am against the death penalty in that I don't think it is an effective deterant, sometimes innocent people are executed, and the process takes too long to be effective.
I am for the death penalty for people like, oh, Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer and the like. Society should rid itself of those sick fucks.

I do think that whether murder is state sanctioned, in self defense, due to insanity, or pre-meditated, that it is not the ultimate evil or the ultimate punishment. In many cases, the death penalty is simply a tool for a society to purge itself of those who threaten reality. It is a neutral act to preserve a certain mindset/reality.

[Bridget Burke]

73. Since you're a nursing student, I trulst you'll never work...

In a facility that terminates pregnancies. Now that killing an unborn child deserves capital punishment.

And--I've heard many excuse for the death penalty, but yours is incoherent. "In many cases, the death penalty is simply a tool for a society to purge itself of those who threaten reality. It is a neutral act to preserve a certain mindset/reality"

---to preserve a certain mindset/reality?

[buckettgirl]

82. I am not making excuses, just stating what is

My idea is:
1. Death is not evil
2. Why do we have a death penalty? It certainly isn't punishment, nor is it a deterant.
People who are killed through the death penalty are done so to preserve a state of mind. Someone commits a horrible crime and people are outraged and want revenge. They feel threatened, whether or not they were close to the victim/killer. A brutal crime against another human greatly upsets the idea that others have in their mind about how people are supposed to act. If we don't do something to, in effect, gain revenge - rid society of that "evil" - then people become scared, more scared than before because it brings to reality that things like that happen (to ordinary people none-the-less). If society can rid itself of the person commiting the crime, then the previous mindset is preserved and all is safe and well.
Is this right? Personally, no, but that is how it works. As long as people feel threatened they will persecute others - guilty or innocent.

Of course that greatly simplifies my thoughts, as I only have time to give an overview of my thoughts.

Again, I personally believe that the death penalty doesn't do any good, but then I also believe that some people deserve to be put to death.
As for the unborn baby thing - I baby in the third trimester is capable of sustaining life outside the womb. It is illegal for women to get abortions that are not a medical emergency in the third trimester. You should read your laws. According to that view, Scott Peterson took 2 lives, and it was right to be declared so. I whole-heartedly agree with Roe v. Wade, that is why I am able to agree with the verdict.

[Johonny]

105. just not true

A brutal crime against another human greatly upsets the idea that others have in their mind about how people are supposed to act. If we don't do something to, in effect, gain revenge - rid society of that "evil" - then people become scared, more scared than before because it brings to reality that things like that happen (to ordinary people none-the-less). If society can rid itself of the person commiting the crime, then the previous mindset is preserved and all is safe and well.


You whole mental thing really doesn't hold. People aren't affraid of Scott Petterson and certainly who thinks the Petterson trial has created a deep feer in the general public of being murdered by their spouse? Nor do most people give a crap about most brutal acts of murder. For what you said to be true then every criminal act and certainly every cold blooded murder should be a media circus ending in sweet, sweet revenge. But it doesn't. Most of the time people give not a crap for the murders all around them. Looking at the court house and I didn't see scared people, I saw angry and bitter people. People taking out the frustration in their own lives in hoping to end the life of someone they don't know, haven't met and wouldn't care about in ordinary life. If society just want to rid people they'd just lock him in jail. Out of sight out of mind. But they want him DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. Mostly for personal reasons that have little to do with who Scott Petterson is.

[Johonny]

75. hmm

"I'm not bothered by it. I am not out for revenge, but people like that don't deserve life. "


Sure sounds a lot like revenge to me.

"In many cases, the death penalty is simply a tool for a society to purge itself of those who threaten reality. "

Threaten reality? What is this a new Fox series. Suicide swap. We swapped a mother of three for a death row inmate. Let's watch the hijinks unfolled. Your aurgement does not make sense. How do murderers threaten reality?

[Forkboy]

88. They dont want to admit to their own desire for blood

so we see these kind of mental gymnastics.

[hollywood926]

121. Why do you say such things?

The point is, I do not typically support the death penalty and it usually bothers me and THIS TIME it doesn't. I merely wanted to point out that some liberals feel very conflicted about this subject.

I'm hardly thirsty for blood. I was depressed the whole day after McVeigh's execution. I still thought he deserved it, but it wasn't a joyful time.

[Djinn]

130. so the execution of a bloke who killed

168 people - including 19 children - disturbed you even though McVeigh had stated he wanted to be executed? yet you're rubbing your hands with glee over Peterson who killed one person and one fetus (the correct term for an unborn baby after 8 weeks of development) and denies involvement...weird

[Forkboy]

135. Because it's my opinion

and so far it's still allowed.

I stand by my statements.

[SOS]

80. Meet Anthony Porter

100% factually innocent. Falsely convicted on the testimony of a liar. Came within 50 hours of death. Just imagine being locked in a cell, facing your execution, for something you did not do.

Read the whole appalling story here:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/porter.htm

[HEAVYHEART]

74. I agree with you

Peterson's balls should be cut and fed to him for dinner.

[Johonny]

77. What

Wine would you serve with human testicule?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

78. Incarceration used to be about rehabilitation.

Do you think that someone who is not mentally unsound could do what he did? Normal people do not murder their wives and dump their bodies off a boat. I'd question his sanity. The standards one must meet to be declared "mentally ill" are absurd. The fact that Aileen Wournos was killed prove that.

Make no mistake, the death penalty will be a thing of the past one day. And people will look back on this generation as barbaric just as we look back on those who tortured slaves.

[forgethell]

158. I don't want him "rehabilitated" and back in society!!

Do you think that someone who is not mentally unsound could do what he did?

Absolutely!!! Money, women, drugs, revenge, hatred. People do it all the time.

Normal people do not murder their wives and dump their bodies off a boat.

Sure they do. Don't you read the newspapers? Decent people don't, however.

I'd question his sanity. The standards one must meet to be declared "mentally ill" are absurd. The fact that Aileen Wournos was killed prove that.


Absurd?? How, exactly. You have to not know that what you are doing is wrong.

You either know right froom wrong, or you don't. We're all mentally unstable in some way, or the other. Me, I'm a food addict. I'd kill for that last pork chop. Except if I did, it's the electric chair or needle, or whatever the preferred execution method of the day is.

Make no mistake, the death penalty will be a thing of the past one day.

Maybe, but not if the people are allowed to vote on it, instead of the courts.

And people will look back on this generation as barbaric just as we look back on those who tortured slaves.


Well, maybe. The only thing we can say for certain is that they will look back on us. Who knows? * may plunge us into a new dark age where pickpockets are executed.

[demokatgurrl]

86. Why do we all give a fuck about Peterson and not about

our neighbors who are murdered by their husbands?????

[Zomby Woof]

89. You seek vengeance, not justice

Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2824073

Are you one of the cheering throngs?

[Lisabtrucking]

90. I agree. N/T

[Mandate My Ass]

91. Liberals don't expect the justice system to mete out revenge

just because they think the defendant is scum and doesn't deserve one moment of life in which s/he isn't consumed by agony and remorse.

THe object is to punish the offender and keep society safe from further harm. Life without parole accomplishes both those ends nicely without dehumanizing the rest of us and accomplishing nothing in the way of deterrance.

[Forkboy]

92. Thank you

:thumbsup:

[Mandate My Ass]

93. No problem. I don't mind being a broken record about this issue

I don't know where this pervasive belief came from that the primary function of the criminal justice system is to provide succor for our outrage.

Outraged? So am I. Fine. Go punch a punching bag or something. I don't want premeditated murder committed in my name. I don't want to stoop to Scott Peterson's level.

[Forkboy]

96. I couldn't put it any better

keep spinning that broken record my friend!

[hollywood926]

125. That's the problem with liberals...

not everything is about what WE want. What about what the victim's family wants? If they want revenge, they should get it. Many families voice opposition to it - this wasn't one of those families.

Peterson traded in his rights when he took another life. He doesn't have the right to vote (does that upset you?) and he doesn't have the right to internet access or to live somewhere other than prison. He doesn't have ANY rights. None.

[Djinn]

131. No it's about what's good for SOCIETY as a whole

some victims families may wish for public torture,Mel Gibson style, would that be OK with you, would you go along to the town square and watch as the family of a murder victim hung, draw and quartered the offender?

The death penalty does not deter anyone, the US has a much higher murder rate than other first worlf non death penalty nations and states in the US without the death penalty do not have higher murder rates than those that do kill people for their crimes.

Could you kill him yourself?

[Danocrat]

94. Maybe

but I think the jury foreman is the hottest thing that ever walked.

[William Bloode]

95. I believe in the death penalty.......

But i have no faith in the state to use it fairly. Therefore a corrupt state of governance such as ours should not be applying it.

In a perfect world where D.A.'s and police were more concerned with true justice, instead of conviction ratios, or arrest totals, i could see it. But we as humans are to easily corrupted, and prone to mistakes to be playing with folks lives.

Becarefull what you wish for, it may be you next.

[illflem]

100. One important use of the death penalty

that you all skip is in plea bargaining. There are more people who plea guilty to avoid execution thus saving society the expense of a trial than there are people who are executed.

[Djinn]

133. and how many are innocent

and are railroaded into pleading guilty to avoid being electrocuted or put to death by toxic injection?

people in liberal democracies have a basic right to a trial by jury of their peers, plea bargaining is often no more than a stick with which to beat people who do not have the resources to fight a costly trial

[MrSlayer]

104. No, you aren't alone.

The decision doesn't bother me at all. The fact that they won't carry it out and will waste millions of tax dollars and years of time with appeals bothers me. During that time he will be isolated on death row and will live in relative safety and comfort. If they gave him life and threw him to the sodomites in gen pop, he'd be better served. The death penalty is more effective if it's carried out quickly. They actually did this clown a favor by putting him on death row.

[Mandate My Ass]

106. Been watching Shawshank Redemption a lot -- haven't we?

Throw him to the sodomites?? :eyes:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

109. Yeah, that's what I was thinking too...

sodomites...really. :eyes:

[MrSlayer]

144. Well it is an appropriate title, is it not?

I could have said let him become someone's bitch but "throw him to the sodomites" sounds better. The Warden says cast you down. Whatever.

[Djinn]

134. am I the only one here

that finds the way people speak gleefully about other people being raped really sick.

You don't wish rape on anyone

[Forkboy]

137. No,you're not alone

These people need help.

[Djinn]

138. I can understand the gut feeling I guess

if someone is connected to a case but no-one here is (far as I know) they didn't know Laci Petterson or her family and yet they're still happy about someone getting raped, very disturbing indeed

[Forkboy]

136. Like I said...bloodthirsty

:puke:

[musette_sf]

171. Good comment

He'd last 9 months, max, at Pelican Bay in general population.

[RobinA]

107. This Liberal

is against the death penalty, period. I don't care if he's probably guilty, laughed at the verdict, drew a comic book picture of the murder, or kicks little puppies. The. state. should. not. be. killing. people. I don't care how despicable the person is. It's about the rest of us, not the killer.

[superconnected]

108. Also against the DP.

Remember our current gov leaders are insane. They liken Moore, liberals and gays to the evil in our society. They're pushing their version of Gods agenda. 15yo unmarried pregnant girls get attacked by them. Do you people that are pro-dp, really want our government to have that authority?

[Deja Q]

110. How about the quality of the death penalty?

Right now, our system allows a nice painless and easy death. Somehow that seems preferable to even the first few months in prison where Rock, Biff, Lance, and "Glenda" realize that you can be the bia'tch for them all. I wouldn't dig prison, not for that price and not with my personality type. I'm already living hell in the outside world, why would I want to make it any worse?

But how about a slow and painful death for scotty-potty there? A little torture on the way out, so to speak?

[donheld]

111. I just wish the world would shut up

about it all now.

[AngryOldDem]

115. They will...

...only because they're ramping up for Robert Blake, the next "trial of the century" on deck.

[AngryOldDem]

113. I'm not surprised at the verdict

I think enough evidence was there to convict -- the phone conversations with Frey alone are convincing.

I knew he was done for after the first day of the penalty phase when the Rochas testified. But I understand in California, getting a sentence of death is pretty much the same as being sentenced to life.

Throughout this whole sideshow, the only thought that kept going through my mind was, "Why didn't you just divorce her?" Not meant to be facetious, but asked in amazement at how the mind works at times.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VOX]

147. Why don't you just spit it out: You're anti-choice.

And BTW, we're ALL "pro-life," strictly speaking.

Women should legally allowed to maintain their reproductive rights and be in charge of their own bodies. Government should stay the hell out of people's lives.

Your views are way out of line with the Democratic Party -- why not be content to remain in the GOP?

[Qanisqineq]

123. With all the soldiers and Iraqi people dying, I find it hard to care

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that never did anything to anyone and American men and women that are just children are killing and being killed.

[genieroze]

124. I think the news with this trial should end now. eom

[giasangria]

126. justice=torture? scary glimpse into the minds of some christians

at work today I listened in awe as my co-workers fully described all the torture they wished to be inflicted on Scott Peterson. It was disturbing, I am talking TORTURE...describing ripping off fingernails one by one, sodomizing with broomsticks and burying him alive. These people did not know him and weren't directly affected by his actions...they are also very devout RW christians and I felt a chill thinking they could harbor such perverse desire to inflict suffering...if they are capable of such thoughts for someone they don't know....well it's not much of a jump to see them tolerating human rights violations of people who are made to seem a threat to them. Just something to think about. I personally did not follow the case so I won't make judgement on Peterson, but I do feel compassion when anyone is treated as nonhuman...I feel the same compassion for Lacey but I cannot know if he was guilty or not. People should never be dehumanized in my opinion. No good can come of it, or of a society that condones it. Please note, I am not saying all christians are like this..just pointing out the disconnect between these individuals' worship of a loving God vs. their desire to inflict suffering on a fellow human being.

[Codeblue]

140. I don't care one way or the other

I had no interest in this case whatsoever.

It seems odd to me that some cases are chosen to be big media hounds and most others are left out of the media.

What was so special about this case? I know it was a "double" homicide, but there are plenty of double homicides every day and none of them get covered.

I really could care less what happened in this case, but it was impossible to avoid.

[leans2left]

145. I'm with you Hollywood

A verdict was reached, and a sentence was handed down. Now carry out the sentence!!

[alittlelark]

148. Death penalty bad = DISTRACTION GOOD

just my 2 cents.

[shimmergal]

149. Our criminal justice system is irrational from the get-go.

The first purpose of any punishment should not be deterence or revenge but PREVENTION. Both in preventing the offender from committing other similar crimes, and in preventing others from doing so. (or even thinking about it, if possible.)

Then, what kind of sense does it make to lump all the "bad guys" together in prison? Yes, for a few it serves to turn their lives around, prob. mostly so they won't end up there again, but most are only made wrose. If we _really_ wanted to change them for the better, we should semi-isolate each criminal, so that they interact ONLY with others who are equally tough, but have non-criminal standards. Except for this group, they have NO social interaction. Impracticable as hell, mostly on economic grounds, but this would make the most sense.

As far as murderers are concerned, I'm inclined to think most (if not all) should be allowed to live but studied intensively so we can learn what makes them "tick.," This has never really been studies empirically; all sides in the debate argue from principle and emotion rather than any even semi-scientific data. This study wouldn't rule out making life in prison very unpleasant for them.

Sorry, I have a divergent imagination about almost everything, but we don't get anywhere with the same old arguments.

[Bombtrack]

150. There are just as many if not more pro-death penalty liberals as there are

anti-death penalty liberals.

Me being one of the pro-death penalty ones. I haven't paid jack shit worth of attention to this case, as anyone with any self respect who didn't know the people involved should, so I have no opinion whatsoever on the verdict or sentancing

[Mandate My Ass]

159. Not true. Hogwash

Most people, across the board of political affiliation reject the DP when life w/o parole is presented as an alternative.

Please cite a source (other than your own opinion) that says there are as many or more pro-DP liberals than anti-DPers.

[Forkboy]

161. Uh huh

:eyes:

[Lexingtonian]

151. Well, you oughta be pretty lonely

I don't know why you begrudge Scott Peterson that prison 'lifestyle'. Say that he decided to try to do the thing they claim prison is good for, the 'paying off a debt to society'- there's no possibility of any inmate doing anything of the kind these days. Compared to that, his life is Permanent Kindergarten. Not Heaven or Hell, but Limbo. That is a crime of the contemporary penal system, really.

As for you being Lacy Peterson's spokesperson or agent, I'd like to know where you got the entitlement to that from. How do you know she wouldn't have a much wiser attitude of some kind, especially given that she presumably isn't bound to trivial and material-bound considerations at this point? How do you know that she even cares? Might not the minimum demand of a person of complete insight be: don't increase the misery of Others without necessity, without something being proven or learned or positively achieved by it? Why would she want a murder committed in her name???

I object to the man getting killed because he's simply a common criminal. Every 'death penalty' execution is a ritual killing, and I don't want or need The State to engage in pagan religious rites for a common criminal. It's a blasphemy, it's a desecration, it's murder. Scott Peterson is no Devil, he's an unfortunately common sort of soul-deficient human being. He's not an appropriate subject for ritual life destruction. Killing him proves only that he was judged by the sort of people who would agree to having him killed.

What a victory for civilization. Not.

[Bridget Burke]

154. Ritual killings are a way to gain power.

Bush Junior gained quite a bit as he presided over 152 executions here in Texas. (He actually commuted one death sentence to life in prison; thanks to him, serial killer Henry Lee Lucas died of natural causes.) The dramatic, almost theatrical murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 certainly "made" Bush's faltering presidency. And the deliberate decision to start a war has led to--how many deaths, so far? Yes, we've got a "popular wartime president" now--who also claims to be "pro-life".

Looking into the more arcane areas, was JFK's assassination a ritual killing of the king?

The killers were not caught, the Warren Commission was a whitewash. There was a sense that the men who ordered the assassination were grinning somewhere over cocktails and out of this, a nearly-psychedelic wonder seized the American population, an awesome shiver before the realization that whoever could kill a president of the United States in broad daylight and get away with it, could get away with anything...

The perpetrators deliberately murdered JFK in such a way as to affect our national identity and cohesiveness -- to fracture America's soul. Even the blatancy of their conspiracy was designed to show their "superiority" and our "futility." "They" were doing to the nation what they had been doing to individuals for years.

www.parascope.com/articles/1196/ken3.htm

This link does go off into the deep end a bit--I'm not afraid of the Freemasons & the Shriner's Hospital helps a lot of kids. Of course, Bush Senior is reported to have been in Dallas on 11/22--but he claims to have forgotten where he was that day.

People rejoiced that Peterson will die. I say just lock him up & throw away the key. However, that alternative is less suitable to life under a Pro-Death President.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

164. Provide some proof of that claim. Or at least some evidence.

Opinions are not facts.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mandate My Ass]

169. This is democratic underground, not liberal underground

and there are posters here who are neither liberals nor democrats. If all you can provide is your beliefs based on purely anecdotal evidence, you'd do well to:

1.) state that you're offering an opinion up front.

2.) get a larger sample of true liberals

3.) stop scapegoating and stereotyping

[superconnected]

184. crumb I'm a liberal who's consistently voted democrat

this must be the wrong site for me...

[Misunderestimator]

177. Shoot... Not a mention of Moralizing Matriarchal Feminists?

[Norwood]

173. I'm not bothered at all

Then again I'm not against the death penalty because of cases such as this.

[bamacrat]

175. Im not but i really dont care one way or another

[secedeeconomically]

178. Comes down to a simple fact

As a society do we believe that killing the guilty will make us feel better or do we believe that killing is wrong, who ever does the killing. And as a society that claims to be very religions (i.e. believing the Bible), its very hypocritical to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow. But then again, America has made hypocrisy very fashionable.