Death vs Life W/O Parole???????

[JustMissed]

Hey, I have been following that Scott Peterson case.

He was found guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child out there is Cal-i-for-knee-ugh(a blue state).

Anyway, some folk think he should get the death penalty and some folk think he should get life.

I'm thinking life would be a harsher penalty.

Who wants to spend 30 or 40 years with some big convict poking you in the ass every night and licking your ear. Yuck!

Also, word is out that he is on a prison hit list so some dude is probably going to stab him with a shieve anyway. What the heck is that about.

Anyway, I'm hoping he get life w/o parole.

JM

[Valuist]

It clearly was premeditated (double) murder, or special circumstances as they say out there. I think death would fit the crime. What is it going to cost taxpayers, $50,000 a year to keep him alive? If he gets the DP, he'll probably be on Death Row for at least 15 years with appeals anyways. I'll shed no tears if they give him the penalty.

[shanta]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Hey, I have been following that Scott Peterson case.

He was found guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child out there is Cal-i-for-knee-ugh(a blue state).

Anyway, some folk think he should get the death penalty and some folk think he should get life.

I'm thinking life would be a harsher penalty.

Who wants to spend 30 or 40 years with some big convict poking you in the ass every night and licking your ear. Yuck!

Also, word is out that he is on a prison hit list so some dude is probably going to stab him with a shieve anyway. What the heck is that about.

Anyway, I'm hoping he get life w/o parole.

JM

I agree with you. Life w/o parole will be his hell on earth. Killin a woman and unborn child will sit real well with his fellow inmates. He should be carved up among them like fresh meat.

A quick death is too easy. Let him get a taste of "Big Willie" coming to make his "booty call" a few dozen times.

Richie

[so.cal.fan]

I have been following the case on Court TV....Nancy Grace.....and I share her views of the case.
I wish I had the confidence he would be treated as harshly as you guys think in prison, but I have my doubts.....they have these "special needs" yards now for these creeps.
Shanta's vision of him is comforting.
I understand that one inmate from San Quinton wrote to Sharon Rocha (Laci's mother) and assured her he would be dealt with appropriately in that facility.
I'm sure if he doesn't get the death penalty, Sharon would be comforted somewhat to know he'll be "having sex" with Big Willie and when he does go out to the exercise yard, he will have to see the San Francisco Bay where he dumped Laci and Conner like trash so he could be a "bachelor" again.
I think the jury in "blue state" California handed down first degree on Laci....and second degree on Connor, only because they didn't want to deal with the fetus/abortion issues. Just a hunch. I know those people up in that area and they aren't too conservative.....but they are fair.
Death or general population life sentence for Scott!
:mad:

[cj]

I really don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the death penalty, probably lean a little towards the against it side. Mostly, that is because it cost taxpayers more when someone is sentenced to death than it does to just put them in jail for life.

That, and there is always a chance he didn't actually do it, no matter how remote. Maybe not in this case, but it has happened before.

[so.cal.fan]

Yep, I agree with you CJ, especially in California.
We have over 600 inmates on Death Row......we execute about one a year.
It will just cost us (taxpayers here in Calif.) more money.
I really like Richie's scenario for Scott........hopefully, Scott will wish he was on Death Row instead, if this is the case.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I have no opinion on him as to the death penalty; but i Think thev actual killing was not pre-neditated, just the attitude.

[freeneasy]

he'll spend from 12 to 15 years on the row where its vrtually impossible to get raped beaten or killed. but his death penelty will be having the experience of completely unrestricted freedom on a daly basis confined to a shitbox with even the little freedom that he has now taken away.
i think they'll give him life because if he do it then this is your only chance to convict and not let a guilty man go free with no chance to ever convict again because the evidence was not so overwhelmingly condeming but did have a lot of indication to it and if per chance he is not guilty which without a doubt there is a remote possibility of then at least he'll be alive to prove otherwise. if i convicted him then i would not have been able to igve him the dp with a crystal clear conscience

[Valuist]

I was about 98% sure OJ did it. With Scott Peterson, I'd say it's about 99.99999% sure he did it.

[so.cal.fan]

I was/am 100% sure OJ did it.
100% sure Scott did it.

Both sociopaths who think they are entitled to anything that suits them, don't give a damn about anyone else.

[Observer]

Originally posted by shanta
...He should be carved up among them like fresh meat. ...

This is a disturbing statement.

[Shacopate]

I'm against the death penalty in most cases, but very much in favor of "Life of hard labor without parole." I think this might be a better deterent since most criminals don't seem to like work.

[so.cal.fan]

I'm with you, Shac.........
Why should we support these sociopaths?

[hurrikane]

I supported the death penalty for a long time. Until the OJ trial. When they said they would not try to get the death penalty becaise they didnt' they could get a jury to award it with his celebrety status. That was it for me. If it isn't going to be distributed evenly how can it be just.

As for Scott. The will likely die in California waiting for the friggin liberals to put him to death. And since it takes a lot more taxpayer money to have a man on death row than life in prison without parol. I would go with life.

[freeneasy]

i didnt follow the trial very closely but ther was circumstancial evidence that played out strongly. but to give a man death on circumstantial, unless that evidence is the equivolent of an unshakeable eyewitness, is to much to ask of anybody.

[Observer]

If anyone saw 60 Minutes tonight .. this is the exact reason I am against the death penalty. In so many cases, how can we know for sure that the person on trial absolutely, undeniably did what they have been charged with????

Perfect case:
Who Killed Carolyn Muncy .. they've got a man on death row .. however .. there was much evidence presented in the 60 Minutes segment to make you wonder .. seriously wonder .. there is evidence that the husband could have been the killer .. there have even been judges who have ruled that the man on death row should be immediately released from prison .. yet this man still sits on death row .. and the appeals process continues.

Yeah .. this makes total sense!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Valuist]

It wasn't just one item of circumstantial evidence. It was a mountain of it. A co worker of mine was counting all the various types of circumstantial evidence they had, in this was well over a year ago. I don't remember it all, but to summarize:

1. Trying to sell his dead (or at the time, considered "missing") wife's car within days of her disappearance. This is really sick; and he's so arrogant, he didn't think anyone would catch on to this?

2. Buying a boat when his friends had said he never boated before, or expressed interest in boating. But if you want to go dump a body out into the SF Bay, you probably can't throw it out too far from shore.

3. Concrete remnants found in the boat. Oh yeah, I guess all boaters keep concrete handy.

4. Trying to flee the country. He had over $10,000 on him, grew a beard and dyed his hair. Innocent people try to do this all the time.....yeah right.

5. Oh yeah, the thing about the affair.....and his wife was pregnant. But Scottie P was too big of a baby; he couldn't deal with the responsibilities that having a child would entail. It might cut out some of his precious tee times....and time with his girlfriend.

6. He lied to his inlaws from day 1. They believed him at first, but it didn't take long for them to realize that he was the killer.

7. His attitude in the days following the disappearance. He continued working and in one brief interview, was both smug and evasive.

This was a spoiled rich boy who had everything given to him. To him, rules did not apply. He deserves to die.

[so.cal.fan]

You forgot when he was smiling at Laci's candlelight vigil on New Years Eve....then split to call Amber and tell her he was in Paris.
He told Amber early in Dec. this would be the first Christmas without his wife, whom had "died".....he then bought a boat, made concrete anchors.....Christmas Day? Laci and Connor are at the bottom of San Francisco Bay.

[Valuist]

I know I've forgotten quite a bit of the circumstantial evidence. I do remember him smiling and acting smug.

I saw the mother in law and Laci's sister on Larry King over a year ago. They did their best to hide their anger but you could see they had zero doubt about who did it.

[freeneasy]

Originally posted by Observer
If anyone saw 60 Minutes tonight .. this is the exact reason I am against the death penalty. In so many cases, how can we know for sure that the person on trial absolutely, undeniably did what they have been charged with????

Perfect case:
Who Killed Carolyn Muncy .. they've got a man on death row .. however .. there was much evidence presented in the 60 Minutes segment to make you wonder .. seriously wonder .. there is evidence that the husband could have been the killer .. there have even been judges who have ruled that the man on death row should be immediately released from prison .. yet this man still sits on death row .. and the appeals process continues.

Yeah .. this makes total sense!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

but in the cases where the evidence is as undinieably solid as an ibeam cut from a hardened slab of cold blue steel i just feel that you cant argue weather the death penalty isnt an appropiate sentence

[freeneasy]

as in the case where a young boy, not even in high school and had no gang ties or affiliations whatsoever was gunned down and shot 19 times in an ally just a few months ago. no o, the dp, i believe has a place in our society when measured out rightly.

[Tom]

Jury recommending death penalty. Lawyers are salivating, placing orders for new yachts.

[Observer]

Originally posted by freeneasy
but in the cases where the evidence is as undinieably solid as an ibeam cut from a hardened slab of cold blue steel i just feel that you cant argue weather the death penalty isnt an appropiate sentence

And I'm sure there are certain cases that seem rock solid .. where someone ends up on death row .. and they are absolutely innocent.

Sorry .. but I just can't agree that a group of people have the right to decide that another human should be put to death .. that doesn't mean that I think any less of the violent acts that are committed out there. I actually find this world a depressing place with all the hate and violence out there.

In the words of Sammy Hagar:

Who Has the Right

Here's a message from the heart, are you listening?
Some things belong to you and no one else
One more life is taken, and that's one more than God allows
And there's another on the row shouting out
Who has the right?
Who has the right?

And there's a war out in the streets that no one is winning
Tell me when did a human life become so cheap
How can we take away what we did not create
Beyond the power of the conscience
Beyond the power of the state
Tell me who, who has the right?
No one has the right

Everyone's a victim and everyone's to blame
We are all so different, yet the same
Everyone's the master of, their own destiny
As long as one of us is chained, none of us is free

How can we take away what we did not create?
Beyond the power of the conscience
Beyond the power of the state
Tell me who, who has the right?
Well no one has the right

Are we making a mistake here?
Well, there's no room for that

Who has the right?
No one has the right

[Tom]

What, then, do we do with the murderers and other assorted scum that are not fit to live free and walk amoung us? Do we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars feeding, housing, and prociding medical care to Peterson? Millions of innocent people in the world do not have such a good deal. Is it right to reward these misfits? Is there then not an incentive for a homeless man, with no prospects or backbone, to just go out and kill an innocnet family to get in on the free ride?
Laci and her baby had no choice in the matter. Who stands up for them?
:confused:

[Observer]

Obviously there are problems on both sides of the fence on the death penalty issue ..

what about technology .. what about people who are cleared years down the line because of advanced technology .. who gives them their years back??? what about people who could have been cleared who have mistakenly been put to death?? who brings them back to their families??? what gives us the right to decide someone deserves death???

Everything I've ever heard regarding costs of the death penalty vs. keeping someone going in prison .. is that the death penalty actually is more costly than a prison sentence. And is prison really a picnic?? Sure, people are being fed and have a bed .. which is more than some other people have .. but I'd like to believe life in prison is no party.

Bottom line:

someone please explain to me how the following story is right:

(Because this is the exact kind of scenario that makes me think the death penalty is wrong)

Who Killed Carolyn Muncy??? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/10/60minutes/main660438.shtml)

[freeneasy]

should be taken off dr. i will probably have to read the story again but it seems there was enough evidence to convict but not enough to issue the dp. now before you say it i know i made a completely contradictive statement and that you can chew it up and spit it out several different ways.
the two women that heard the husbands confession were truly neglegent in their efforts to make this fact known if the da's office was the only office they told.
theres either more to their story then what meets the eye or they just werent telling the whole truth and holding something back and i say this because i feel that if they did in fact have sustaining evidence that would prove the mans innocense or the husbands guilt, then they could have and should have went directly to the attorney for the defense and told him of the entire confession and that with all haste. that is if it was as important then as it is now.
and if it was all that important then the question becomes " with an innocent mans life in the balence what was it or what is it that would or could possibly hold these two women back from making every possible effort on earth to bring this testimony tothe proper authorities until some 17 years later.
they could have and should have either forced their way into the judges chambers, the da's office, the defense attorneys office and if all else fails then go to the media.
someone would have taken them seriously. and it would have been given consideralble attention
but what did they do? they sat around in court for two days and went home. what are you supposed to think now? they cant be put in a courtroom and questioned for the truth by either side, that opportunity ended when the case was over. so at this point they can add, subtract or hide and say whatever they want. their testimony now cannot be held with the same validation that it would have recieved had it gone thru the trial system thereby giving each side fair and ample opportunity to conduct its own line of questioning.
the judes were right to disallow this as new testimony and reopen the trial based on this fact alone.
if there was a case of blatent neglegence on the part of the district attorney to gain a verdict, that is having vital information to a mans innocence and holding back this information and/or not referring these two ladies to the proper athorities and in this case the defense attorney's office, or for whatever reason, then who knows the effect their testimony would have had on the outcome of this trial and the benifit of every doubt has to be given to the defendent and a new trial should be ordered.
but that doesnt answer your question O, as to who gave us or who gives us the right to sentence a man to die.
well i think partly the answer is we do O. we give ourselfs the right to sentence a man to die.
well then if thats the case, who are we to give ourselfs the right to sentence a man to die?
we are the ones who cry out for whats just in our land and in our lives.
we cry out for the justice of others and for those that have been brutally slain. we cry out for the ones who have been senselessly and selfeshly and unmercifully torn out of our lives. we cry for ourselfs as well. murder is a nasty thing. i dont think i have the perfect answer but its the right one and sadly in many cases its the wrong one.
maybe i can give you a highly debateable example. i will use two sernarios and i will have to place you in each senario.
1) if an encounter was forced upon you where you had to protect a loved one from an intruders intention of murder, would you not hesitate to take the intruders life by causing his death before anything else?
2) if an encounter was forced upon you where you had to protect a loved one from an intruders intention of murder, would you not hesitate to take the intruders life by causing his death before anything else? but this intruder was able to carry out his intention and escaped your effort to take his life, was able to flee without capture but was later apprehened brought to trial, convicted for his crime and sentenced to die.
would there be a difference or should there be a difference or how much of a difference would/should their be, if the death of this intruder came about at the time of his intention to murder a loved one of yours or at the day his sentence to die is carried out?
i know that the one death comes about during the defense of a loved one and that the other by the sentencing of the law but either way death was sure to be.
iam not going to say " either way, what does it matter or whats the difference because one way or another he was to end up dead anyway " no, because i know you dont believe that man has the right to sentence another man to death but i feel he has received the same sentence that you would have carried out in order to prevent the death or murder of a loved one.
so forgive me for the lack of a better expression O but i feel that such a person is receiving the same death that should have come before the fact, with the difference being that now that same death will have to come about and take place after the fact.
if there is anything that you may have taken into disrespect o i assure you there is no intention of any kind. just a strong subjet.
richard

[Observer]

No disrespect taken .. this certainly is an incredibly strong subject .. and of course, it gets a whole lot more personal when throwing in hypotheticals about loved ones .. and I have to argue that comparing a before situation to an after situation is a difficult comparison for me.

But with regard to the case I posted .. toss out the testimony of the two ladies .. argue that they didn't try hard enough .. that the waited too long .. fine .. but even without their testimony .. there is still substantial evidence that this man absolutely should not be sitting on death row. And if the new evidence was available back then .. it may have been enough to provide for reasonable doubt .. which would have prevented the man from even going to jail in the first place.

And let's not forget .. how good or how bad a lawyer is can totally swing a case for a defendant.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Observer
And let's not forget .. how good or how bad a lawyer is can totally swing a case for a defendant.

Yes...that is why OJ is walking around free.:mad:
How is it possible that entire LA DA office was completely incompetent at the same time? Chris Darnell looked like a complete idiot.