Why did Peterson get the death penalty?

davefoc

Philosopher
davefoc
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Messages
9,434
Location
orange country, california
Why did Peterson get the death penalty?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_re_us/laci_peterson_17

The case seemed a little outside the range of cases that get the death penalty to me, but I'm no expert.

Before the thing started I thought the death penalty was unlikely, but Peterson's attorney seemed to be coming across as an obnoxious buffoon and I wondered if the jury didn't feel a bit like that and when it came to a close call just extended their dislike of Geragos enough to push them into the death penalty decision.

Is California law explicit enough about when to invoke the death penalty that after the facts were determined in this case the invocation of the death penalty just followed.
 
davefoc said:
Is California law explicit enough about when to invoke the death penalty that after the facts were determined in this case the invocation of the death penalty just followed.
Click to expand...

There are explicit "aggravating factors". At least one must be found to get the death penalty. A partial list of aggravating factors:

Conspiracy
by arson
peace officer victim
lying in wait
multiple homicide
contract killing

etc.

This case qualified as a "multiple homicide". It might also be a "lying in wait", but that will probably never be known.
 
Thanks for your answer Phildonnia,
I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has.

In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty.

But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law?

For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?
 
davefoc said:
Thanks for your answer Phildonnia,
I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has.

In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty.

But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law?

For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?
Click to expand...

I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.
 
davefoc said:
Thanks for your answer Phildonnia,
I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has.

In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty.

But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law?

For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?
Click to expand...

The same jury that found him guilty of capital murder (death penalty eligible) could have also (but did not) recommended a life sentence. The judge can overturn the death recommendation but can't overturn a life recommendation.
 
Ed said:
I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it - that did him in. The tapes of his lovesick peadings with Amber Frye were nausea inducing. I think Amber Frye and the tapes were the nail in the coffin. Impossible to have any sympathy after that.
 
Death penalty

I agree that he should not have gotten the death penalty in this case. The reason being that there is a very real chance that he did not commit the crime whether we choose to consider it or not.

No weapon, no forensic evidence except for a strand of hair that was explained, no witnesses to arguments between the two, no evidence of planning of a murder, no reasonable motive for murder. There were witnesses that saw Lacy walking her dog.

The thing that convicted him is that he was hated because he was an adulterer. The Frey tapes, deamonized him even more, and probably should never have been let in. Peterson also did some stupid things that made himself look guilty even though he might not have been. He just ran too long unlawyered, which helped to do him in. The judge also allowed a lot of speculation without fact, and did not do a very good job in controlling the case.

Then add the media demonizing him 24/7, and his goose was cooked.

This trial kind of reminded me what a Salem witchcraft trial might have been like.

Now, I don't know if he did it or not, but I will say that I believe that there is just a good of a chance that he did not as if he did.

So on that basis, I do not believe that he should be put to death. And really believe the death penalty should probably be done away with, because the chance of mistakes is great. Juries a lot of time do not really know, as in the Peterson case, and they just base judgement on facial expression, how the the person walks, etc.

Again, he may have done it, but he sure didn't get a fair trial.
 
Re: Death penalty

nightwind said:
I agree that he should not have gotten the death penalty in this case. The reason being that there is a very real chance that he did not commit the crime whether we choose to consider it or not.

Click to expand...

That is reasonable doubt and the jury did not have any. You can hardly sit here, typing deathless prose, and suggest that you in any way have a small fraction of the knowledge that the jury acquired over the months of testimony, can you?
 
Re: Re: Death penalty

Ed said:
That is reasonable doubt and the jury did not have any. You can hardly sit here, typing deathless prose, and suggest that you in any way have a small fraction of the knowledge that the jury acquired over the months of testimony, can you?
Click to expand...
I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons.
 
Re: Re: Why did Peterson get the death penalty?

Tmy said:
Killing your wife and unborn kid, in cold blood, doesnt fall under a death penalty case!?!? geez what do you have to do then? Commit mass genocide.
Click to expand...

Even mass genocide would not break the threshold for many anti-death penalty activists.
 
Re: Re: Re: Death penalty

hgc said:
I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We have a system and you can't pick and choose based on whether you disagree with the sentence. That said, I do have a problem with a jury reviewing months of testimony in one hour.

I also have a problem with the Ito Circus but you will note that the MJ judge seems to have learned from that unfortunate experience and appears to be runnig a tighter ship, or shall I say tight ship.

If you are suggesting that there was a miscarriage of justice in the Peterson case, I suspect that will come out over the coming decades as he appeals.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death penalty

Kodiak said:
All juries are not created equal. ;)
Click to expand...

Right, and it appears that they were a racist lot but they erred on the side of mercy and that is preferable to the opposite.
 
Peterson

Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty.

Hope this is a more appropriate response.
 
Re: Peterson

nightwind said:
Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty.

Hope this is a more appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Since you were not on the jury, I can understand your position.
 
nightwind said:
Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty.

Hope this is a more appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Based on your first response, it appears that you really don't think he should have been convicted at all.
 
Ed said:
I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.
Click to expand...
Bingo, and a good reason to oppose the death penalty. It is simply administered in an unfair and uneven matter. I'm still pro-death penalty but I'm loosing faith in its application.

I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. However, had I been on his jury I would have probably voted to acquit and I certainly would not have voted for the death penalty even though I think the a-hole should be drawn and quartered. The evidence was iffy at best for conviction. I wouldn't send anyone to death row that didn't have strong forensic evidence that they were guilty. Eye witness testimony would unlikely fly for me. It is too unreliable.
 
RandFan said:
Bingo, and a good reason to oppose the death penalty. It is simply administered in an unfair and uneven matter. I'm still pro-death penalty but I'm loosing faith in its application.
Click to expand...
Well said.


I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. However, had I been on his jury I would have probably voted to acquit and I certainly would not have voted for the death penalty ..... The evidence was iffy at best for conviction. I wouldn't send anyone to death row that didn't have strong forensic evidence that they were guilty. Eye witness testimony would unlikely fly for me. It is too unreliable.
Click to expand...
I have no idea of his guilt, but don't think I'd have convicted him on the news as I saw it.

DNA forensic evidence is also beginning to worry me. Frame-ups seem a bit too easy ... a hair follicle, saliva, etc ... seem too easy to plant. And Peterson didn't even that against him.

Finally, why would anyone -- guilty or innocent -- who might be in the slightest suspicion of a major crime ever make any comment to police, allow them in the home, or intereact in any way without a lawyer present?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom