millbank Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Peterson punishment: Death JUDGE AGREES PETERSON SHOULD DIE FOR HIS CRIMES By Jessie Seyfer Mercury News Judge Alfred Delucchi sentenced Scott Peterson to die by lethal injection for the murders of his wife, Laci Peterson, and unborn son. This morning, Delucchi also denied a motion from Peterson's attorneys for a new trial. The same jury that convicted Peterson of first- and second-degree murder recommended in December that Peterson be put to death. The former Modesto fertilizer salesman entered the Redwood City courtroom wearing a dark suit and shackled at the waist with handcuffs. Delucchi's denial of the motion for a new trial was expected. Much of the rationale used by Peterson's lawyer, Mark Geragos, in his motion -- two jurors should not have been dismissed, the trial should have been moved from San Mateo County, various evidence should not have been allowed -- already had been ruled on by Delucchi during the trial and deliberations.
elcrusho Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 If he dies, then that dude in Atlanta needs to die...
KD in CA Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 If he dies, then that dude in Atlanta needs to die... 276760[/snapback] Not that I disagree with putting both of them down, but Peterson's crime was ten times worse. Rot in hell Scotty.
Zamboni Man Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Why waste a good needle, just release him into the general population.
PastaJoe Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I don't agree with that decision. He should be given life in prison. Nobody should be given the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence.
stuckincincy Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I don't agree with that decision. He should be given life in prison. Nobody should be given the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence. 276789[/snapback] Yep. I'm all for the death penalty, but as you say...
30dive Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I don't agree with that decision. He should be given life in prison. Nobody should be given the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence. 276789[/snapback] Agreed.
elcrusho Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Not that I disagree with putting both of them down, but Peterson's crime was ten times worse. Rot in hell Scotty. 276774[/snapback] Ok, we know that Nichols killed....let's see here...A Judge, A Sheriff, News Reporter, and a Federal customs Agent....This dude should be put to death by Decapitation... Oh wait, and there is no proof that peterson did it either...
IDBillzFan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I don't agree with that decision. He should be given life in prison. Nobody should be given the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence. 276789[/snapback] Is he guilty? Yes. That makes him a murderer. How did he get found guilty? Who cares. He's guilty. He should die. Maybe if we didn't have so many loophopes and got to the executions quicker, we'd have less Scott Petersons in this world and more Laci Petersons.
stevestojan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I don't agree with that decision. He should be given life in prison. Nobody should be given the death penalty based only on circumstantial evidence. 276789[/snapback] I 100% totally agree. I think he's guilty. All signs point to guilty. But until there's some concrete evidence, or he admits it, he should be in jail forever. Like this guy - awful just reading a few sentences of his execution. Please his innocence even while they needle gets injected. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/okla.exe...reut/index.html
stevestojan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 How did he get found guilty? Who cares. He's guilty. He should die.276864[/snapback] Who cares? Well that's a great way to think. 12 jurors decided it. Am i arguing the US judicial system? No, 12 peers judging your fate seems to be about the fairest way to do it. But what if he didn't do it. Like I said, all signs point to it, but there's no solid evidence besides circumstantial evidence. I don't see any reason we can't reserve the death penalty for those cases where we have ZERO doubt, not just lacking reasonable doubt. All doubt should be gone, then kill him.
aussiew Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 100% totally agree. I think he's guilty. All signs point to guilty. But until there's some concrete evidence, or he admits it, he should be in jail forever Ditto. As much as I'd like to see this guy fry - someone's got to come up with some evidence.
30dive Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 This argument goes in complete cirlcles and those of us on both sides know it. I for one am against it, many of you are for it. Primarily I am against it because I do not think it is our job to do. Secondly we have NEVER proven that we can apply this sentence fairly. I often think back to when I first moved to Virginia and three women (two white, one balck) violently killed another of their roomates. All the evidence pointed to all three playing an equal role in this horrible murder. All three where tried seperately, the two white women got life, the black woman got the death penalty. The judge in the black womans case change the sentence to life. One might argue that the system worked, but these sentences are based on emotion and just is not, well, just.
IDBillzFan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Ditto. As much as I'd like to see this guy fry - someone's got to come up with some evidence. 276871[/snapback] Very shortly after her death he was found trying to leave the country with his hair dyed, a goatee, and $10,000 in cash...after they found her corpse but while they were looking for her murderer. This was after, of course, he was cheating on his pregnant wife with a woman who, upon hearing of Laci's death, immediately suspected Scott had killed her and was worried she was next. Good enough for me.
Justice Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I have jury duty in a couple of weeks. I hope I don't get a murder trial or anything like that because I can't give another human being the death penalty.
stevestojan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I have jury duty in a couple of weeks. I hope I don't get a murder trial or anything like that because I can't give another human being the death penalty. 276909[/snapback] That's the beauty of being a juror - you don't need to.
IDBillzFan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 I have jury duty in a couple of weeks. I hope I don't get a murder trial or anything like that because I can't give another human being the death penalty. 276909[/snapback] Make sure you tell them that when they interview you. You'll get home more quickly.
Dan Gross Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Remember, he was convicted in California. He has a better chance of dying of natural causes in prison than the lethal injection he was sentenced to. In the interim, there is plenty of opportunity to dis-prove his guilt, if it can be done. It's not like he's going to the death chamber first thing in the morning...
Justice Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 Make sure you tell them that when they interview you. You'll get home more quickly. 276911[/snapback] That's true
IDBillzFan Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 It's not like he's going to the death chamber first thing in the morning... 276920[/snapback] Unfortunately.
Recommended Posts