Scott Peterson must DIE!

[RussDill]

I'm going to put forth my usual argument against the death penalty that I believe trumps all pro-death penalty arguments. (I'm sure not all will agree with it, of course!)

What if Peterson is executed and 10 years from now, new evidence become available that proves someone else did it. Yes, I realize that based on the current evidence, it's a pretty good bet that he did it. However, based on what I've read, jurors certainly wouldn't call this a slam dunk case.

So, if new evidence becomes available and Peterson is dead, what happens? The family gets an apology and a nice monetary settlement. We shrug our shoulders and say "Well, we get it right most of the time."
Then it becomes murder, state sponsored if you will.

Look, if Peterson did kill his wife and unborn child (which I'm quite sure he did based on my knowledge of the case), I don't take any joy knowing the guy gets to wake up every morning breathing air.
He probaby does deserve to die.

But since there might be the smallest bit of doubt, it's best just to give him life in prison. And since a lot of capital punishment cases probably have some doubt (how many cases are absolutely, 100% doubt free), the only reasonable thing to do is not have the death penalty.

conviction and sentancing should be, and should remain, seperate. You're probability and standards for conviction should not depend on the possible sentence.

 

[BPSCG]

But since there might be the smallest bit of doubt, it's best just to give him life in prison. And since a lot of capital punishment cases probably have some doubt (how many cases are absolutely, 100% doubt free), the only reasonable thing to do is not have the death penalty.

Sp what you're saying is that you're okay with convicting him, because you're convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But you wouldn't want him executed unless you were satisfied beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was guilty?

 

[Beleth]

Sp what you're saying is that you're okay with convicting him, because you're convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But you wouldn't want him executed unless you were satisfied beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was guilty?

I mostly agree with what KelvinG said. And while I can't speak for him, yes, I'd want BtSoaD proof before I sentenced someone to death.

 

[glsunder]

I too have to agree with KevinG. The death penalty is certainly a very special case. I'm fine with it being used when there is absolutely no doubt, but not when there is a possibility of error. Sorry doesn't cut it some times, and that is one of them. I'll go one further. If a prosecuter or cop knew the innocent executed defendant was innocent, or forged evidence, he would be guilty of murder and he should be executed as well, no matter what his race or beauty is.

 

[BPSCG]

Okay, FWIW, that would be the direction I think I'd head. I think Peterson is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But I do have this nagging little unreasonable doubt in the back of my head. His alibi was so inept you could eat a dictionary and puke a better one. If he was really going to kill his wife, you'd think he'd come up with something better.

Again, I would vote to convict him. But probably not to execute him. I'm in favor of keeping the death penalty, but it is irrevocable, so I don't see the justification for imposing it if you're not as certain of the guy's guilt as humanly possible.

 

[Beleth]

IMO the death penalty should only be used for the most egregious crimes. Timothy McVeigh comes instantly to mind. He got it, and he deserved it. And of course it's spelled out to be an acceptable form of punishment for treason in the Constitution. But Peterson? Not from the information I have.

 

[davefoc]

Hmm, a few thoughts on the above.

On BPSCG's comments about unreasonable doubt:
BPSCG expressed my thoughts on the case well. I like the term unreasonable doubt and it seems to be a factor which is legitimate to take into account in deciding between and death and life in prison at least as per the pundits commenting on the Peterson case.

I am a little troubled by the idea that I would have voted to convict this guy but I still have these lingering doubts. It reminds me a bit of the time I had inadvertently hired a criminal who stole from me and despite overwhelming evidence that he had stolen from me there was a part of me that questioned that conclusion while he denied his guilt.

Tmy's comment about race and class bias in death penalty cases:

I think there is less than you might think. The classic statistic that purports to show that the system is biased against blacks because blacks are sentenced to death more often for killing whites than they are for killing other blacks is very misleading. Society tends to punish murder of strangers more than murder of family and associates because murder of strangers tends to be found to be first degree murder often with special circumstances like killing a police officer and murder of family and associates tends to be found to be second degree or manslaughter. Hence if you are a minority most of your family and associate victims will be in your minority and most of your stranger victims will not be in your minority. And therefore you will be sentenced to death more ofen if your victims are not in the minority that you belong to. When this issue is taken into account the apparent bias of the system evidenced by this statistic against blacks disappears.

I think you can make a better case for class distinction than racial distinction. Several cases that have received national attention lately resulted in what appeared to me favorable results for wealthy defendants in situations that I didn't think a middle class or poor individual would not have had a chance in.

Timothy McVeigh and the death penalty:
This case troubled me a bit. In general I think crimes that are done for money or other significant personal benefit are greater moral transgressions than crimes that seem to be ones that only a crazy man could commit. So on the davefoc morality scale, I might put Peterson lower than McVeigh. Peterson killed, probably, because he didn't want to deal with a child and didn't want to divide up his assets in a messy divorce. McVeigh killed because of some inner wackiness that led him to feel that the murder of hundreds of people was justified.

On the Beleth's futility of talking about Peterson case:
Every thread like this has someone say something like this and whenever they do I respond with my standard spiel about why cases like this receive national coverage and why we are interested in them. I have decided not to do that this time.

Case that Beleth served on the jury for:
Wow my brother served on a jury of a similar case. I think though in my brother's case the victims were actually the ones that were intended. The issue was whether the fact that the shooting occurred in a sort of mutually agreed to gunfight somehow absolved the shooters of guilt. My brother thought absolutely not and that the law should be followed and the defendants found guilty of first degree murder. There were some in the jury that indicated that they wouldn't find anybody guilty of anything. So after a long deliberation a compromise was worked out and the gang members were found guilty of manslaughter, a crime which my brother was sure that they weren't guilty of. In the end the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder wasn't that significant because the defendant's had such bad records that a manslaughter conviction managed to get them sentenced for a very long time.

 

[epepke]

I absolutely, positively, could not possibly care any less.

I agree. This should never have been more than a regional news story.

Based on extrapolation from current trends, let's say that the human race gets to the point where there is exactly one murder, somewhere in the world, per year.

All television stations except movie channels will broadcast eight hours per day on nothing but the trial. The remaining hours will be devoted to docu-dramas based on the case. All the movie channels will show docu-dramas about previous years' cases. Everyone will be extremely paranoid and lock their doors all the time and talk about how much crime there is, not like the Good Ole' Days.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Living in Calif., this story is on the news every single day here.

What I find interesting is that there have just been days of testimony from Lacy's grieving mother and family and Scott's worried mother and family.

This kind of personal testimony isn't supposed to play at all in the juror's minds when they make their decision, but you know that it has to. I just don't get what this kind of testimony has to do with the legal process?

 

[Kopji]

I think that if anyone deserves to die Peterson does. We are not as good at doing executions as we think though.

Mistakes on death row:
Since 1973, 117 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innnocence.
<>

High cost:
...Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988
During that time period, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions
<>

The real losers (as always) are the mentally ill: <>

Texas, which commonly executes individuals with mental health issues, is ranked 46th in the nation for mental health care spending.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I think that if anyone deserves to die Peterson does. We are not as good at doing executions as we think though.

Mistakes on death row:
Since 1973, 117 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innnocence.
<>

High cost:
...Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988
During that time period, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions
<>

The real losers (as always) are the mentally ill: <>

Texas, which commonly executes individuals with mental health issues, is ranked 46th in the nation for mental health care spending.

Heh, I'll shoot him for free, and I don't miss.

 

[Kopji]

lol, we could send him hunting in Wisconsin.

 

[Brown]

The jury has reached a decision.

As of this writing, the decision has not been announced. Stay tuned.

 

[Tmy]

High cost:
...Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution from 1973 to 1988
During that time period, Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty to achieve 18 executions

Misleading numbers. Im sure they take into account the costs of defending/prosecuting the appeals. Well thats what people do! Thats the prosecutors job! Might as well let people go rather than put them on trial cause of the cost of the prosecutor, police, judge, ect....

 

[KelvinG]

Sp what you're saying is that you're okay with convicting him, because you're convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But you wouldn't want him executed unless you were satisfied beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was guilty?

I wish that that in every case that goes to trial we could be 100% certain after the verdict has been announced, that it is the correct one. Of course, that is an impossibility.
Right now, the best we can do is convict based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Which means every once in awhile someone is going to end up going to prison who is actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Yes, that sucks. It's too bad it ever has to happen. But, such is the imperfect nature of life.

And no, I'm not saying that the only time someone should be exectued is if I'm satisfied beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm saying, let's not execute anyone at all.
I can't imagine how anyone could say that a life sentence is not punishment enough.
In recent years, there have been a number of prominent cases where criminals have been freed after DNA evidence had proven their innocence. Suppose they had been executed? Would we just shrug our shoulders and say "Oops."

Yes, in our current system it totally sucks that someone ends up in prison for 20 years for a crime they did not commit. But, at least there is the possibility for exoneration, should it be warranted. It's not like the other option to the death sentence is setting them free. They are still being punished.

Like I said in my previous post, all it takes is putting one person to death who later turns out to be innocent and the state is responsible for murder.
"Oops"

 

[da bear]

Another voice against the death penalty here.

Like was said by KelvinG, in probably the vast majority of cases there is always a possibility that future evidence may exonerate someone. This probability may be slight in most of those cases, but I think that all will agree that the possibility still does exist.

If the reason for the death penalty is that taking another's life is viewed as a most heinous act, then the thought that there is a chance, however remote that chance may be, that an innocent person could be put to death by a legal system should be heinous to people too.

As for the people that leave no doubts about the crime they commmited? Well, I tend to think that society would benefit more if the monies spent on executions were spent on studying these quasi-people.

 

[Beerina]

Misleading numbers. Im sure they take into account the costs of defending/prosecuting the appeals. Well thats what people do! Thats the prosecutors job! Might as well let people go rather than put them on trial cause of the cost of the prosecutor, police, judge, ect....

A good point. You'd have to only add in appeals that were purely to get out of the death penalty, rather than appeals that would be filed regardless.

In any case, cost should not even be considered either way.

1. If it were cheaper to execute, would anybody suggest cost is a legitimate consideration in favor of it?

2. "We didn't execute him...because it was too expensive." is a slap in the face of all ethical arguments in favor of it.

3. Which are both A. Deterrence, and B. Punishment. If you're convinced it's good for either, is cost even relevant?

 

[Beerina]

Another voice against the death penalty here.

Like was said by KelvinG, in probably the vast majority of cases there is always a possibility that future evidence may exonerate someone. This probability may be slight in most of those cases, but I think that all will agree that the possibility still does exist.

If the reason for the death penalty is that taking another's life is viewed as a most heinous act, then the thought that there is a chance, however remote that chance may be, that an innocent person could be put to death by a legal system should be heinous to people too.

As for the people that leave no doubts about the crime they commmited? Well, I tend to think that society would benefit more if the monies spent on executions were spent on studying these quasi-people.

Yes, but what's the real, core, emotional reason you are against the death penalty? One of the lamest things I ever learned in college was this thesis/antithesis/synthesis crap in English writing. Make your arguments, and pre-empt via pre-argument your opponent's arguments. Feh

What's the real reason? Most anti-death penalty people are probably just squeamish about the whole thing, and that's the core reason.

And if you're pro, which I am (concerns about accuracy of conviction aside), then just admit you think it's an acceptable punishment to express society's revulsion at the act. Don't even bother with deterrece, etc.

It's a similar argument about the 2nd ammendment. The real reason you have the right to bear arms isn't hunting, or shooting clubs, or Olympic shooting, or even protecting yourself from common criminals. It's to provide a method to resist the government if the need arises.

It's sad people have to resort to lesser, and technically meaningless, supporting reasons, in either of these two issues.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's official!

DEATH

 

[da bear]

Yes, but what's the real, core, emotional reason you are against the death penalty? One of the lamest things I ever learned in college was this thesis/antithesis/synthesis crap in English writing. Make your arguments, and pre-empt via pre-argument your opponent's arguments. Feh

What's the real reason? Most anti-death penalty people are probably just squeamish about the whole thing, and that's the core reason.

As I said...

the thought that there is a chance, however remote that chance may be, that an innocent person could be put to death by a legal system should be heinous to people too.