# Should Scott Peterson be executed?



## Flatlander (Dec 13, 2004)

Scott Peterson has received the death penalty after being found guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. Do you think he should die for his crime? Why or why not?

Reference Article.


----------



## Satt (Dec 13, 2004)

If convicted, I think people should be killed exactly the way they killed the original victim. So how did he kill his wife? Just let her family do that to him. He he. :mp5:


----------



## kelly keltner (Dec 13, 2004)

lt's tie a 100 lb anchor to his neck and see if he can swim time.


kk


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2004)

The state should not be in the business of killing people. Even in this case, it is wrong for the state to take a life. 

But, this is about as good of an argument there is for capitol punishment. 

Mike


----------



## kelly keltner (Dec 13, 2004)

I'm curious why you believe it is wrong for the state to take a life. I'm not asking in a durogatory or flaming manner. Just curious as to your reasoning

kk


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 13, 2004)

As soon as the hammer comes down they should take the criminals to another room and be done with them on the spot! He should have been executed a long time ago. I'm glad they finally came to a conclusion.
artyon:


----------



## Xequat (Dec 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The state should not be in the business of killing people. Even in this case, it is wrong for the state to take a life.
> 
> But, this is about as good of an argument there is for capitol punishment.
> 
> Mike


I'm no lawyer, but didn't the jury decide to execute him?  I only got the highlights and I'm not sure exactly how all of that courtroom stuff works, but I believe that the twelve jurors have to decide whether death is appropriate.  I understand what you're saying about the state deciding whether or not to kill someone and that's a good argument, so I'm not even going to try to rebutt it right now, but I will say that I agree with Satt.  Let the punishment fit the crime and if the killer thought it was OK to kill someone a certain way, then let it be done to him/her as well.  It's not cruel or unusual in that case, either.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2004)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> I'm curious why you believe it is wrong for the state to take a life. I'm not asking in a durogatory or flaming manner. Just curious as to your reasoning


The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.

The state should act in a way that completely fulfills these interests, but proceeds no further.

George Will (notice the right wing name dropping here) has said there are two ways to 'punish' a member of society - loss of property, loss of freedom. We see these to methods of punishment when society imposes a fine for a traffic violation (loss of property) or a siezure (in some drug cases, for example). As well as when society incarcerates a law-breaker.

Capital punishment does not fit into either of these catogories. 

The argument can be made that Capital Punishment is the most extreme case of 'loss of freedom'. This argument would be valid if incarceration without parole was not a possible alternative. If we could not guarantee a person could be held for his entire life in custody, then executing that person would be a rational alternative. I believe our society has a prison system that can successfully keep a person incarcerated for his or her natural life. 

Capital punishment, in the United States, is about revenge; not justice. 


Thank you for listening.

Mike


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.
> 
> The state should act in a way that completely fulfills these interests, but proceeds no further.
> 
> ...


MichaelEdward,
Sorry for this but: what about Laci Peterson's loss of freedom - and that of her unborn child?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2004)

Im for the death penalty. But Im against it in cases built on circumstantial evidence. If there was a witness or solid physical evidence.....I think Peterson did do it, but if you are going to exact the ultimate punishment, I think there should be some evidentiary hurdles that should be overcome.


----------



## mj_lover (Dec 13, 2004)

personally, i'm against the death penalty. My reasoning is, if you or the state, or whatever kills somebody, you are also a murderer. But, i do not agree with going lighty on such criminals, and i do belive the desert needs a good sweeping, that would be a nice little job for them. I'm sure there are many more options than can be explored besides the death penalty. I just don't like the idea of a gov't/state sinking to the level of killers.

 just my 2c


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2004)

The only good arguments one has read or heard in favor of capital punishment are a) a weirdie by C.S. Lewis, who argues that NOT to execute a guilty person is a denial of their humanity, their fundamental freedom of moral choice, and b) a pregnant friend, who said, "Well, as an expectant mom, there are some people I just don't want on the planet," and c) Hannibal Lecter, who said, "A civilized society would either execute me or give me my books."

Then too, there are many--Ollie North and Henry Kissinger and Agusto Pinochet come to mind immediately--with a great deal of innocent blood on their hands who will probably die safe in their beds. So if one wishes to get all bent about the unborn child issue....

Personally, one will support capital punishment when it brings back the dead. Otherwise--as mentioned--it's just revenge.


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 13, 2004)

What one of the jurors said today made me think.  He said this was about as personal as you can get or something to that effect.  Scott Peterson should have been the one to protect his wife and son, not murder them. This was no stranger that killed them.  What kind of man could kill his son, and even if he felt nothing for his wife, didn't he once love her?  And then to put on that act afterwards. Does he deserve to live at all? Would he ever suffer what he did in prison? No, not even by lethal injection. But he has knowingly given up his freedom and his life in my opinion.  TW


----------



## Tgace (Dec 13, 2004)

What's with this "one" thing???


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 13, 2004)

Some murders should not be punished via death. Others ... without a doubt. Circumstances leading to the murder should be extensively examined and weighed. 
Two people get into a fight and one kills the other then life or 20 years. 
Someone who plots and kills for money or for the other's spouse... life.
Bank robbery and a security guard or innocent bystander is killed... life or 20. 
Another type of bank robbery, innocents are killed just for the sake of killing them. Definitely death. 
A child is beaten/abused to death... death penalty. 
Pregnant mother (regardless which term); death. 
Murdering in a jealous rage, life or 20. 
A woman defending herself from rape or abuse and kills her attacker/husband... 10-15 or less...
And so on... 
Like I said: circumstances involving the murder and why. 
Scott Peterson and the more recent Mark Hacking... definitely the death penalty. Mainly because they plotted and murdered their respective spouses for the sake that they didn't want to be with them anymore. Laci was pregnant and thus two lives were taken. Hacking most likely would've divorced her husband but he killed her and threw her in the garbage and then pretended (like Scott P.) that he was sooo worried about her that she might have been kidnapped or worse. 
In court both of these men showed no remorse, ala OJ Simpson. 
Punishment should fit the crime especially when the crime is as hideous as these two. 

The state assumes the responsibility for the greater good of the whole. Murderers have been released before to kill again. Sometimes a life in prison just doesn't do the supposed rehabilitation that it's says it would do. Some people_ just don't care. _ 
What irks me is the length of time a convicted (without a doubt) murderer spends on death row. Ted Bundy if I recall spent more than 13 years before being put to death. Why? Evidence weighed against him definitely proved he was guilty.  Same with Jeffery Dahmler and others. 
I say two years being the maximum length for waiting for execution. This will make Lawyers get off their butts and investigate harder to prove their clients innocent. 
Yes, people have been found innocent of a crime they were convicted of via DNA technology and other means... but some have spent years behind bars needlessly because people were not actively pursuing the case and DA's have  the reputation of wanting to convict as fast as possible with whatever evidence they have.  
It's another sticky in life.. but the justice system needs a face-lift where investigations need to go beyond the "without-a-doubt". There should be no question what-so-ever. 
A real sticky...


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> MichaelEdward,
> Sorry for this but: what about Laci Peterson's loss of freedom - and that of her unborn child?


Both are tragic and criminal. But those acts were not the actions of the state. 

The person who committed those crimes will be punished by the State. The state must be accountable and answerable for its actions. If the state chooses to terminate the life of a criminal, when other, equally effective methods of punishment are available, it crosses an ethical line that I believe should not be crossed.

There are times when the state does need to sanction killing, those times exist only when less drastic methods are not feasible (such as in warfare).


----------



## DeLamar.J (Dec 13, 2004)

If he really did what they say he did then yes. Just because the courtroom comes to a conclusion does not mean its the right one.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 13, 2004)

I'm not quite sure that death is a suitable punishment in this case. If I was positive that hell exsists and Peterson would suffer an eternity, then maybe. Otherwise ending his life lets him off easy. He should have to rot in jail with no rope on his soap. I also wouldn't mind seeing a "torture sentacing" term for guys like this and others who have no remorse for their actions and who don't value the life of innocent people. Some people should suffer worse than jail time or death, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Both are tragic and criminal. But those acts were not the actions of the state.
> 
> The person who committed those crimes will be punished by the State. The state must be accountable and answerable for its actions. If the state chooses to terminate the life of a criminal, when other, equally effective methods of punishment are available, it crosses an ethical line that I believe should not be crossed.
> 
> There are times when the state does need to sanction killing, those times exist only when less drastic methods are not feasible (such as in warfare).


I'm usually right on the "those darned liberals" boat with you Michael, but not on this item.  For this particular case, I don't believe there was the weight of evidence necesary to support the death penalty: We have multiple offense thugs in California prisons who were caught on tape killing multiple victims, caught with the gun that did the crime, confessed to the crime, and showed no remorse for their deeds. For them, I think we are wasting resources better spent by removing them from the gene pool. One can, in my eyes, refute their right to inhale based on their actions.

Remember Lawrence Singleton? Raped and cut the hands off of a 14 year old girl, then left her for dead in a field. She crawled (on stumps, mind you) through fields and sewers to get herself some help (had those mechanical claws for a while...may have different prosthetics now). He did some time, got out with much public ado, and went right back to a life of crime, committing heinous acts against young victims. Granted, nobody actually died in the famous case that sent him to prison (though apparently some did later). Rather, she (the young woman he tortured and maimed) went through all of the trials and trauma of one being murdered, but had the undesirable distinction of living though it to try and piece together some semblance of normalcy afterwards.

I would have stood in line to pull the switch on Singleton if he had been given the death penalty, but we stopped penalizing rape with execution when it was rightly shown that people of color from lower SES's were being convicted and executed disproportionately more than whites. Until that issue is resolved and/or controlled for (which may be an impossibility), I do believe the state has an obligation to double and triple check it's use of the death penalty. That having been said, Singleton was white, and should have died for his crimes (strong trail of substantial evidence). Peterson is white, and should spend his days rotting in a cell, having nightmares about dropping the soap in the shower, and wondering when his next severe beating will come about for being the convicted killer of an unborn baby (weak trail of not-very-substantial evidence).

This judgement is made having not been on the jury, and not having been privvy to all of the details they had exposure to. If I was on the jury, I might be ready to stand in line to pull the switch on him, as well.

Dave


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.


a) yes he is being punished
b) i definitely think they are prohibiting a recurrence of the infraction

this sentence was laid out by a jury of his "peers". people like you and me. i think they heard sufficient evidence, that made them believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that he commited this crime.
they were interviewing the juror's on CNN, and some of them mentioned that it took hearing everything, and acting on their own judgement, without pressure from the public opinion, or media, to come to their decision.
i dont think it would be easy to have the life of someone held in my grasp......i dont think it was easy for them, but as a society we use this method, however archaic it is, to dole out punishment as we see fit.
i wouldnt classify it as revenge killing either.......punishment is about being a deterrent. if you kill someone, and know when you get caught that you will be killed, it makes SOME people stop and think.

shawn


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 14, 2004)

This isn't Scott's fault. It's our fault as society. We are to blame for this. He needs counceling and psychiatric attention to help him identify why he did it and to get him on the road to recovery. Then maybe he could get a job at the local library or be placed back into society as a functioning member.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Dec 14, 2004)

I have heard an estimate that it would take a minimum of 27 years now before he would actually be executed.  In my mind, this is the only thing wrong with this particular judgement.  Give him his three appeals, and if he is unable to sway the appellate courts, execute immediately.

Quite frankly, i'm surprised to here someone say that life in prison is a better punishment.  I for one, do not look forward to footing the bill for this guy to remained locked up in a chamber for the remainder of his life. 

It is the states job to execute him per the law.  We can argue the ethics of the issue all day long, but our opinions really do not count here.  The current law states that if a jury sentences him to death, and the judge certifies that judgement, IT IS THE STATES JOB to execute.  Period.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> I have heard an estimate that it would take a minimum of 27 years now before he would actually be executed.  In my mind, this is the only thing wrong with this particular judgement.  Give him his three appeals, and if he is unable to sway the appellate courts, execute immediately.


I'm in complete agreement here. The appeals process is entirely too bloated. Look at how long McVeigh (sp?) held out... 

Jeff


----------



## raedyn (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> I have heard an estimate that it would take a minimum of 27 years now before he would actually be executed. In my mind, this is the only thing wrong with this particular judgement. Give him his three appeals, and if he is unable to sway the appellate courts, execute immediately.
> <snip>
> I for one, do not look forward to footing the bill for this guy to remained locked up in a chamber for the remainder of his life.


You would THINK that it would be more expensive to keep a person in prison for life versus executing them. But the opposite has proven true. When someone is sentenced to the death penalty, not only do you pay to keep them in jail for decades, you also pay all the court costs of all their appeals - the judges, the prosecution AND the defence. Then you pay to kill them. Execution is decidedly NOT a cost-saving measure. So if you believe it is the right thing, that's fine but realize it costs MORE to get revenge in this way than it does to just let them rot in a jail cell.


----------



## Satt (Dec 14, 2004)

You know what I hate about the death penalty? I hate how they spend so much of my tax dollars on Lethal Injection/Gas/Electric Chair/etc., when a 9mm round to the head is so much cheaper!!! (and I believe the most humane) Talk about getting it over with quick!!! I would rather be killed with a quick shot to the head than to rot in jail for years, or wait in line to be killed for years, etc... Just my 2 cents on that.

Jason


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 14, 2004)

As with most such discussions, it's hard not to notice that this particular discusison is rapidly turning into exactly what proponents stridently claim the death penalty is *not* about: bloody cries for vengeance and displaced fantasies for committing violence against wrongdoers, usually involving some kind of Hollywood-style action-hero techniques.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Dec 14, 2004)

> When someone is sentenced to the death penalty, not only do you pay to keep them in jail for decades, you also pay all the court costs of all their appeals - the judges, the prosecution AND the defence. Then you pay to kill them. Execution is decidedly NOT a cost-saving measure. So if you believe it is the right thing, that's fine but realize it costs MORE to get revenge in this way than it does to just let them rot in a jail cell.



All of which you are going to pay regardless.  You don't think Peterson would have gone through the appeals process had he only received life in prison?  This will be, and would have been contested for years.  So all of those fees are still going to be there.

This is not about revenge.  This is about right and wrong, and following written law.  And to some people in the corrections system, staying in a Federal Pen is better than there normal lives on the street.  How is that punishment?


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> And to some people in the corrections system, staying in a Federal Pen is better than there normal lives on the street. How is that punishment?


True enough, however, inapplicable in this circumstance. Mr. Peterson was rather well off financially prior to this.

I was hoping to be a little more specific with this thread, in terms of: is this an appropriate sentence in this circumstance, rather than a debate on the merits of capital punishment in general.

Personally, I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I feel that the act was atrocious enough to warrant a strong and clear "deterrent" sentence. On the other hand, I also feel that capital sentences should be reserved for specific circumstances wherein the guilty party has clearly demonstrated an inablilty to behave according to the laws of society, and is a demonstrable danger to the public. I don't believe that this is the case here. This was a one time act, and does not reveal the guilty party to be a non-conformative animal. He had a reason to do this. I don't understand that reason, I don't believe there is a justifiable reason for this, however, he did not kill because he feels compelled, or otherwise loves to kill others. He was trying to make a problem go away. Again, clearly the wrong way to solve the problem, but I see no reason to believe he would do it again. He is not a serial killer.

Given that capital punishment is a sentencing option there, I realize that if the jury decides it to be appropriate, the state has an obligation to carry it out. What I fear is that the sensationalism of the story has mandated the response, rather than ethics and reason.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 14, 2004)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> personally, i'm against the death penalty. My reasoning is, if you or the state, or whatever kills somebody, you are also a murderer. just my 2c


Don't take this as smartash, just trying to understand here:

So, if a known murderer attacks you and you kill him in the process of defending yourself you should be tried for murder? Penal codes have outlines for justifiicatied use of force/deadly force for the citizenry.

How do you reconcile practicing/'premeditating' lethal force habits if you feel that any loss of life at your hands will be defined as murder?

On CAPPUN:

Some people would say that death is letting them off the hook.  Making them live a life of restriction/accountability is worse because they know everyday why they are there...got that logic from a priest of all people


----------



## Drac (Dec 14, 2004)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> lt's tie a 100 lb anchor to his neck and see if he can swim time.
> 
> 
> kk


Sounds fair to me...


----------



## Jeff Boler (Dec 14, 2004)

> Given that capital punishment is a sentencing option there, I realize that if the jury decides it to be appropriate, the state has an obligation to carry it out. What I fear is that the sensationalism of the story has mandated the response, rather than ethics and reason.



I'm not sure that the sensationalism is what has me bothered.  I guess i'm somewhat bothered by the fact that there was no real physical evidence proving him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.  All of the jurors have said that it was his lack of expression or remorse that caused them to side the way they did.

Then again, they were able to see some stuff that we were not, so maybe there were some additional things that brought them to that decision.  Who knows?

Regardless, I think both families are only going to go through more pain and suffering by drawing this process out 30 years.  Give him his 3 appeals, and be done with it, one way or the other.   Chances are that these families will never receive closure during their lifetimes, and that's what really bothers me.


----------



## kelly keltner (Dec 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.
> 
> The state should act in a way that completely fulfills these interests, but proceeds no further.
> 
> ...


 I'm writing this off the cuff so anyone please feel free to chime.
Doesn't the constitution say something to the effect that no one will be deprived of life liberty or property without due proccess. 
Due process being the operative words here. 
hasn't Peterson had his due process? (trial by jury of his peers)
Capital punishment is still an accepted form of punishment in California, but only if what are known as special circumstances are met.
The jury found the requirment for special cicumstances was met and gave the appropriate sentence for that requirment.
The opinion that Capital punishment is nothing more than revenge. Is just that an opinion.
Just like saying that the state should not be in the business of taking lives is just an opinion.
I respect those opinions but I do not agree with them.
So until 
A) The laws of this country are changed making CP an unacceptable form of punisment.
B) The Supreme court renders a decision that makes CP an unacceptable form of punisment.

Until one of those two things happens then it is up to the individual state to decide. In California we have decided it is acceptable. 
The drawback being that in the state of California the defendant will probalbly die of old age before he/she is executed. 

kel


----------



## Lisa (Dec 14, 2004)

Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but but just out of curiosity when wass the last execution that the state of California performed?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 14, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but but just out of curiosity when wass the last execution that the state of California performed?


A while ago...which is my problem with the whole argument. For all the consternation over CP. What is the actual % of cases where the sentence is carried out??


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im for the death penalty. But Im against it in cases built on circumstantial evidence. If there was a witness or solid physical evidence.....I think Peterson did do it, but if you are going to exact the ultimate punishment, I think there should be some evidentiary hurdles that should be overcome.


I tend to be against the death penalty - for some of the reasons michaeledward eloquently stated, as well as the financial reasons raedyn mentioned - and the fact that punishment may be worse to be reminded every day of your life what you did.

And tgace mentions a point that worries me.  How many capital punishment cases were decided on circumstantial evidence?  We know that some innocent people have been executed in the past.  That chills me far more than placing Peterson in prision for life.  Don't sensationalize him any more - let him meditate upon the crime in prison, and let the media move on.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 14, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> I'm usually right on the "those darned liberals" boat with you Michael, but not on this item. For this particular case, I don't believe there was the weight of evidence necesary to support the death penalty: We have multiple offense thugs in California prisons who were caught on tape killing multiple victims, caught with the gun that did the crime, confessed to the crime, and showed no remorse for their deeds. For them, I think we are wasting resources better spent by removing them from the gene pool. One can, in my eyes, refute their right to inhale based on their actions.
> 
> Remember Lawrence Singleton? Raped and cut the hands off of a 14 year old girl, then left her for dead in a field. She crawled (on stumps, mind you) through fields and sewers to get herself some help (had those mechanical claws for a while...may have different prosthetics now). He did some time, got out with much public ado, and went right back to a life of crime, committing heinous acts against young victims. Granted, nobody actually died in the famous case that sent him to prison (though apparently some did later). Rather, she (the young woman he tortured and maimed) went through all of the trials and trauma of one being murdered, but had the undesirable distinction of living though it to try and piece together some semblance of normalcy afterwards.
> 
> ...


That is absolutely horrible.  (The crimes you mentioned, not the post.)

And why no outrage for CP then?  Or was there outrage?  Curious - I find that even more horrible.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 14, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> I was hoping to be a little more specific with this thread, in terms of: is this an appropriate sentence in this circumstance, rather than a debate on the merits of capital punishment in general.


I think it's weird that there has been so much attention on this case. It's not like they were celebrities. There is no reason this particular murder should get so much media attention, as far as I can. Men murder their wives on a regular basis why is THIS murder on the news every night?

The general discussion is much interesting - to me - than the specifics of this very very sad but relatively uninteresting case.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 14, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I think it's weird that there has been so much attention on this case. It's not like they were celebrities. There is no reason this particular murder should get so much media attention, as far as I can. Men murder their wives on a regular basis why is THIS murder on the news every night?
> 
> The general discussion is much interesting - to me - than the specifics of this very very sad but relatively uninteresting case.


Good point - I think there is something about murdering a pregnant woman who would bear your baby that is disgusting to people - but yet horrific things like that do happen frequently - perhaps the upper-middle-class, happy-looking white couple with this tragedy is what made it so sensational to the public.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> All of which you are going to pay regardless. You don't think Peterson would have gone through the appeals process had he only received life in prison? This will be, and would have been contested for years. So all of those fees are still going to be there.


Nope. They aren't. Appeals in a Capital Murder case (death penalty case) MUST be heard. Appeals of a regular case can be, and often are, dismissed. But that's only the beginning. 

Consider the following;

from here (July 2004 study by Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Reseach Office)
Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.

from here (Dec 2003 Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases produced by for the State of Kansas)





> The estimated cost of a death penalty case was *70% more* than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
> - The _investigation_ costs for death-sentence cases were about *3 times greater* than for non-death cases.
> - The _trial_ costs for death cases were about *16 times greater* than for non-death cases ($508,000 per death case; $32,000 per non-death case).
> - The _appeal_ costs for death cases were about *21 times greater*.
> ...


from here (May 1993 study by Duke University)
The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million *more* per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 14, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Perhaps the upper-middle-class, happy-looking white couple with this tragedy is what made it so sensational to the public.


Yeah that's what occurs to me as well, but I try not to be so cynical all the time. And sometimes it's difficult to define the line between what the public finds interesting and what the media finds interesting. I think in large measure the 'public' cares about what they are told to care about. The coverage we recieve does a lot towards forming our opinions.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 14, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> <snip>The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million *more* per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment.


 Yes can see how it would be costly to the tax-payer.  But how much value is an innocent life so callously taken from either rage, jealousy, or sheer perversion...the joy of killing? 
Weigh the lives of the innocent victims against the cost of killing the guilty.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 14, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Yes can see how it would be costly to the tax-payer. But how much value is an innocent life so callously taken from either rage, jealousy, or sheer perversion...the joy of killing?
> Weigh the lives of the innocent victims against the cost of killing the guilty.


But the lives of the victims will not be brought back by executing the person or people found guilty.  It remains what we do with them, and it is our responsibility, even if we find them abhorrent.  

Spending more money for the state to execute someone should be done, if one has a predilection for the death penalty, when the evidence is *overwhelming*.  And what will the execution do?  I don't think that sociopaths who find human life so valueless to begin with will really be affected by someone else's execution (in terms of frightening other sociopaths away from murder or rape or cruelty).


----------



## raedyn (Dec 14, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Yes can see how it would be costly to the tax-payer. But how much value is an innocent life so callously taken from either rage, jealousy, or sheer perversion...the joy of killing?
> Weigh the lives of the innocent victims against the cost of killing the guilty.


Yes, this is an important question to consider. I do not intend to say either way that we should or should not be paying this money. I only intended to challenge the false notion that killing someone off via execution is cheaper than the life-in-prison alternative. The evidence is decidedly to the contrary.

If we, as a society, decide the importance of killing off murders is worth the additional expense, then fine. There are many costly things our government does because we (or those w/desicion making powers, at least) believe in them. But we must make informed choices and realize that it will cost taxpayers - you and I - more in the name of "justice" (or "revenge" or whatever you want to call it). We must weigh the value of the victims against the cost of the execution etc and decide if the Dealth Penalty is so much greater Justice than life in prison to justify the extra millions of dollars it demands out of our pockets.


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> As soon as the hammer comes down they should take the criminals to another room and be done with them on the spot! He should have been executed a long time ago. I'm glad they finally came to a conclusion.
> artyon:



I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll throw my .02 in anyway.  I couldnt agree more with the above post!  I'm watching the NEWS tonight, and they start talking..once again..about the case.  They said how it could be years before he's actually killed.  IMO, if its proven, with no doubt in anyones mind, that hes guilty, then I agree..do it right then and there!!!  I mean, people complain all the time about the overcrowding in prisons..sooo, why not do something about it!!!  Look at Michael Ross.  Hes another one thats been sitting on DR for how many years??  Too many IMO.  He killed many people, it was proven that he did it, so why is he still around??  

Mike


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 14, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> Excuse my ignorance on this matter, but but just out of curiosity when wass the last execution that the state of California performed?



@ Nalia

2002, drug fiend for the burglary of an elderly woman's home to steal jewelry, oh yeah, he raped and killed her on the way out the door. :asian: 



@ everyone else

but god forbid we as citizens exact the same punishment to these criminals as they did on their victims, to take their precious life.  what a joke, gimme a break.  what else should we do?  incarceration for life so that we can pay for their food and upkeep until they die?  do we as taxpayers deserve such an injustice to ourselves; just to spare a criminal's worthless life...?  i think not.  let the punishment fit the crime.  

but on the other hand, i think the prosecution in the peterson case did a lousy job presenting the state's case.  don't get me wrong, i have no doubt in my mind he killed his own wife, but i just don't feel the state presented a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case.  it was all circumstantial, just as Tgrace pointed out.  if you're going to take a criminal's life, for God's sake have enough evidence to back up your case.  there wasn't a single piece of evidence the state presented to convince me as a juror to execute this man.  yeah of course the jury could find him guilty based upon shady evidence, but to sentence this guy to death based upon the same?  i think it was all about what the American public wanted instead.  for the most part, this country wanted him to be found guilty and sentenced to die.  just my opinion though.

i also firmly believe that mark geragos isn't worth the suit he wears.  he had no defense tactic even worth mentioning in any two-bit law school.  it's like he was just tossing out all kinds of alibis' just hoping the jury would bite at just one of them.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The only good arguments one has read or heard in favor of capital punishment are a) a weirdie by C.S. Lewis, who argues that NOT to execute a guilty person is a denial of their humanity, their fundamental freedom of moral choice, and b) a pregnant friend, who said, "Well, as an expectant mom, there are some people I just don't want on the planet," and c) Hannibal Lecter, who said, "A civilized society would either execute me or give me my books."
> 
> Then too, there are many--Ollie North and Henry Kissinger and Agusto Pinochet come to mind immediately--with a great deal of innocent blood on their hands who will probably die safe in their beds. So if one wishes to get all bent about the unborn child issue....
> 
> Personally, one will support capital punishment when it brings back the dead. Otherwise--as mentioned--it's just revenge.



Is it not the responsibility of a civilized society to maintain the wellfare of its general population? I agree with Hannibal Lectoer, either execute or leave them to their business in incarceration. Yet to leave someone in such a state and to have what they desire is not punishment, it is only prevention of possible future concerns.

So, I ask, if you have a sick/dying dog, do you not put it down? If your dog has rabies do you not also put it down to stop the infection spread and damage it will cause, and possible even the pain and suffering of the animal. You could lock the dog in a cage until it dies, yet it is considered 'Humane' to put the animal down. And yet, it is not considered Humane to remove a non functioning member of society beyond all possible doubt. Instead we spend lots of money on them, and then complain about the amount of taxes spent here, and not enough on education. Yet, the cost of of a capital punishment case with all the appelas to make sure it is correct, it also very costly. So, is it a matter of what costs less? Or is it a manner of Humanity? Or is it a matter of rehabilitation? Or is it a matter of Punishment? With the assumption that what is done is best for the overall society. 

Not sure, anyone can answer the questions, and if they can I do not believe there is one answer that will fit all.


Note: It is a tragic loss to the family, I approached this from a philisophical point, and did not mean to cause anyone any grief.  :asian:


----------



## modarnis (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> I guess i'm somewhat bothered by the fact that there was no real physical evidence proving him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.  QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt, all doubt or absolute certainty.  As for a lack of physical evidence, circumstantial evidence is given the same weight by our justice system as direct evidence.  The jury must connect the other facts.  A simple example.  After sleeping you go outside and the ground is wet.  Absent other facts, it is reasoable to infer that it rained.  Obviously if there were facts in evidence citing a leaking garden hose, or someone spilling the water, the inference that it rained could not be reasonably draw.  The media makes a big hoopla about circumstantial evidence.  Truth is we all rely on mountains of it in our day to day lives.


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 14, 2004)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#From DPIC

click the above link for detailed figures on the cost of capital punishment.

it's clearly understandable that, quite possibly, most liberals & democrats are against the death penalty based upon cost alone.  it's not the life of a criminal they are wishing to save, but just another $$ :idunno: i could be wrong, make your own assumptions i suppose :ultracool .


----------



## Sapper6 (Dec 14, 2004)

modarnis said:
			
		

> A simple example.  After sleeping you go outside and the ground is wet.  Absent other facts, it is reasoable to infer that it rained.  Obviously if there were facts in evidence citing a leaking garden hose, or someone spilling the water, the inference that it rained could not be reasonably draw.  The media makes a big hoopla about circumstantial evidence.  Truth is we all rely on mountains of it in our day to day lives.



let's not forget about humidity and high dew points


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2004)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#From DPIC
> 
> click the above link for detailed figures on the cost of capital punishment.
> 
> it's clearly understandable that, quite possibly, most liberals & democrats are against the death penalty based upon cost alone.  it's not the life of a criminal they are wishing to save, but just another $$ :idunno: i could be wrong, make your own assumptions i suppose :ultracool .



What amazes me, is that people complain about the cost of the execution, but they seem to forget that they are still paying alot of money to keep all of these people housed in jail/prison.  In addition, they're also paying for the programs/treatment they are getting while in prison.  

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 14, 2004)

modarnis said:
			
		

> Jeff Boler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Adept (Dec 14, 2004)

Quite simply, there are people I do not want to share this planet with.


----------



## kelly keltner (Dec 14, 2004)

Jeff Boler said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that the sensationalism is what has me bothered.  I guess i'm somewhat bothered by the fact that there was no real physical evidence proving him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.  All of the jurors have said that it was his lack of expression or remorse that caused them to side the way they did.
> 
> Then again, they were able to see some stuff that we were not, so maybe there were some additional things that brought them to that decision.  Who knows?
> 
> Regardless, I think both families are only going to go through more pain and suffering by drawing this process out 30 years.  Give him his 3 appeals, and be done with it, one way or the other.   Chances are that these families will never receive closure during their lifetimes, and that's what really bothers me.


 I don't disagree, but we really don't know all of the evidence that was presented or how it was presented. What we know is what was shown on the news. What the news show is just a short synopsis of what happened that day with a little spin thrown in. As far as physical evidence it is all circumstancial. There can be many theories as to the circumstances on how the hair got in the pliars for example. It is how convincingly the prosecutors connect the dots with the evidence, timelines and testimony that can make or break the case. In this case the evidence, timelines and testimony were enough to convince 12 people of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 
What we are doing here is armchair quarterbacking without really knowing all the facts.
It is the jurors job to weigh all the facts and to come to a conclusion.

kelly


----------



## Tgace (Dec 14, 2004)

To the unknown person who gave me the (-) rep for my post and wrote this...

"murderers don't like witnesses, and even solid physical evidence can be construed as circumstancial"

All very true. Im not saying dont convict. But admit it, there is a difference between finding somebody guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" and having no doubt whatsoever of somebodies guilt. I would just prefer to have some sort of evidentiary guidelines before executing somebody. Is this guy the "rabbid wolf" that should be killed before he gets back into the flock? Or is it a "life for a life" thing? Theres plenty of killers that will get parole, why dosent that apply to them? 

In the end, I believe there are the "rabbid wolf" types that should be executed (IMHO), but I still believe there should be a sentencing guideline. Was there enough evidence in this case? I really dont know, I havent been following it very closely. Just IMHO......I lock them up, I dont try or sentence them.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The only good arguments one has read or heard in favor of capital punishment are a) a weirdie by C.S. Lewis, who argues that NOT to execute a guilty person is a denial of their humanity, their fundamental freedom of moral choice, and b) a pregnant friend, who said, "Well, as an expectant mom, there are some people I just don't want on the planet," and c) Hannibal Lecter, who said, "A civilized society would either execute me or give me my books."
> 
> Then too, there are many--Ollie North and Henry Kissinger and Agusto Pinochet come to mind immediately--with a great deal of innocent blood on their hands who will probably die safe in their beds. So if one wishes to get all bent about the unborn child issue....
> 
> Personally, one will support capital punishment when it brings back the dead. Otherwise--as mentioned--it's just revenge.


If Robert can use the "one", can I use the "imperious 'we'"?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 14, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> If Robert can use the "one", can I use the "imperious 'we'"?


Yeah...what is up with that???


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah...what is up with that???


One doesn't know, but we find it entertaining nonetheless.

D.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 14, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> One doesn't know, but we find it entertaining nonetheless.
> 
> D.


:rofl:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Dec 14, 2004)

But seriously, Robert. You've been writing some good shyte of late. Less abrasive, and more explanatory of your own rationale. I know you don't give a rats fat patootie about how I regard you, but I'm gradually developing an increased appreciation for your offerings (anti-dis-irregardlessly of whether or not I agree with the position, they are well put).

Dave


----------



## Tgace (Dec 15, 2004)

Interesting opinion on this case I found while surfing around in my insomniac haze..

http://alertstatusblond.blogspot.com/2004/12/guilty-until-proven-innocent.html

A little too 21 yo "Fight the power" for me to agree with everything she says, but not bad. She has the same doubts about the death penalty in this case as I do.


----------



## Dan G (Dec 15, 2004)

I'll say straight off that I don't have an opinion on the specific case, and I don't know enough about US legal process to say anything too specific.

However, I have trained as a lawyer in the UK, and have sufficient experience to be very very sceptical about the legal process in UK ( and I consider it one of the finest in the world today), and I doubt it is hugely different in the US. We don't have capital punishment in the UK now, except theoretically for piracy and treason, and for that I am grateful. 

Put simply do you generally trust lawyers, politicians or civil servants to be honest and competent 100% of the time?

In supporting capital punishment you put your life, and the life of your loved ones, friends and acquaintances into the hands of the state and the legal system. Their only protection is a jury of 12 selected in part by lawyers from both sides. It is the best system we have, but it is clearly not infallible, and doubtful decisions are a regular occurence.

IMHO it isn't about whether Scott Peterson, or Charles Manson, or whoever deserves to live, it is about how much power any person is prepared to put in the hands of the executive.

I wouldn't get my car fixed by a mechanic that was known to be occasionally dishonest or incompetent, I certainly would never see a doctor if I had similar doubts. Similarly I am extremely nervous about extending the power that government has over me.

As a martial artist I am partly motivated by the desire to take some measure of control over my own safety and livelihood, so it makes sense to me to minimise the number of people who have the power of life or death over me, and the people I care about. 

I am not saying that the world doesn't have it's fair share of "oxygen pirates", and there are sadly a large number of people that would make this world a better place by leaving it, but to me it isn't about who deserves what, it isn't about the rights and wrongs of revenge and punishment, and it isn't "political", it is just a matter of being practical. I don't want to trust government or lawyers with life or death decisions unless it is absolutely unavoidable, and with capital punishment I believe it is avoidable. (Looking at the alternatives a life sentence is hardly a picnic either - a hard "life" by any standards)

It is just a personal opinion, and I entirely respect the opinions of those that feel different. 

With respect,

Dan


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 15, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure that death is a suitable punishment in this case. If I was positive that hell exsists and Peterson would suffer an eternity, then maybe. Otherwise ending his life lets him off easy. He should have to rot in jail with no rope on his soap. I also wouldn't mind seeing a "torture sentacing" term for guys like this and others who have no remorse for their actions and who don't value the life of innocent people. Some people should suffer worse than jail time or death, but that's just my opinion.


And I thought _I_ was bad.  Torture sentencing?  What a concept.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 15, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> If Robert can use the "one", can I use the "imperious 'we'"?


Because he's Robertson, that's why.  He's earned the right to be the resident curmudgeon.  Some of us find him most entertaining *tiger pokes*.

Back on topic, I have only one question for you all within the debate concerning the cost of maintaining criminals in jail, about convictions on circumstantial evidence, and so on:

What if Laci Peterson was your sister?  Your wife?  Your daughter?  Your mother?  Your grandmother?  Your aunt?  Your cousin?

How objective could you be - honestly.

I know I couldn't.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 15, 2004)

I may have been a bit harsh in that last statement, but when I turn on the news and hear about innocent children, for example, getting raped and beaten to death by some crazy lunitic who has complete disregard for human life and enjoys the experience, they should get a taste of the suffering that they have caused others. Hopefully then, they would realize the severity of their actions. 

I realize that this isn't related to this thread, but situations like that get me thinkin' about whether I agree with CP or not. The "mentally stable" criminals that commit these terrible crimes against humanity should be severily punished, and may result in others evaluating whether the crime is worth the punishment before acting.
Just my opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Because he's Robertson, that's why. He's earned the right to be the resident curmudgeon. Some of us find him most entertaining *tiger pokes*.
> 
> Back on topic, I have only one question for you all within the debate concerning the cost of maintaining criminals in jail, about convictions on circumstantial evidence, and so on:
> 
> ...


And I thought I was the resident curmudgeon .... oh, well, got to have goals.

If Laci Peterson was my sister ... I hope that I would continue to believe that the State has no place in taking a life. 

But even more so, and this has been stated elsewhere on this board, it is a reason to have accused criminals face a jury of impartial peers and not family members. The purpose of a trial is to expose facts of an event. From those facts, we ask an impartial jury of peers to determine guilt or innocence. We go out of the way to insure that potential members of the jury are not bringing any personal connection and emotion to the solemn duty of serving on a jury. We do this to prevent the courtroom from becoming a forum for revenge. The function of the courtroom is to find justice, and we will recall, that the woman holding the balance is blindfolded; for a reason, I think.

Mike


----------



## modarnis (Dec 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The purpose of a trial is to expose facts of an event. From those facts, we ask an impartial jury of peers to determine guilt or innocence.



I disagree with this statement.  The facts exist as they are.  In the modern justice system with rules of discovery, facts don't get exposed, since they can't be hidden.  (See Brady v Maryland US Supreme court case where the prosecution is obligated to disclose any potentially exculpatory evidence)

Juries are finders of fact.  They hear the evidence presented and hear the law as charged to them by the judge.  Their major function is to apply the law as instructed to the facts.  They must assure beyond a reasonable doubt that each element of the offense was proved.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> ... by some crazy lunitic who has complete disregard for human life and enjoys the experience ... severe punishment ... may result in others evaluating whether the crime is worth the punishment before acting.


"Crazy lunatics who enjoy the experience" do not "evaluate" if the crime is "worth it". Mentally ill people (depending on the illness) and cognitively challenged people often lack the ability to see ahead to the consequences of thier actions. It takes children a while to learn this, and there are people with afflictions that prevent them from even developing that skill.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 16, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> "Crazy lunatics who enjoy the experience" do not "evaluate" if the crime is "worth it". Mentally ill people (depending on the illness) and cognitively challenged people often lack the ability to see ahead to the consequences of thier actions. It takes children a while to learn this, and there are people with afflictions that prevent them from even developing that skill.


While I agree with your statement about some mentally ill people lacking the ability to see future consequences, I also beleive that many horrible crimes are commited by well aware criminals who understand the concept of right and wrong, action and reaction, crime and punishment. But then again, I can only imagine the reasoning that takes place within the inner mind of a murderer, insane or not.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 16, 2004)

Even "well aware criminals who understand the concept of right and wrong" rarely kill in a rational, calcuated frame of mind. More often they kill
 - during domestic disputes, emotions running high
 - under the influence of drugs (including alcohol)
 - mentally ill
 - depressed & self-desructive: wanting to be caught, arrested, maybe even killed

Maybe you and I can say that the dealthy penalty would deter us from killing someone. But we both live in Canada, Deuce. There is no death penalty here. And neither of us has murdered anybody, right? So there are 3 options to explain this.
1) We would never kill anybody anyway.
2) Life in prison (parolled after 25 years) is sufficient deterrant.
3) We've never been in the situation where we felt the need to kill and that situation could happen no matter the consequences.

So what difference would adding Capital Punishment make?

(I'm working on a post including some more research references, but that's gonna take me a while. I just wanted to throw this in here for the moment.)


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 16, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> While I agree with your statement about some mentally ill people lacking the ability to see future consequences, I also beleive that many horrible crimes are commited by well aware criminals who understand the concept of right and wrong, action and reaction, crime and punishment. But then again, I can only imagine the reasoning that takes place within the inner mind of a murderer, insane or not.


I think those "well aware" folk (nicely put, by the way) believe they are smarter and more wily than the rest of us, therefore they will get away with what they do.  Goes back to the white collar, middle/uppermiddle class arguments upthread.  Scott Peterson looks like a nice man who couldn't possibly commit such an heinous crime, doesn't he?

We have a case here, Daniel Pelosi, an electrician who murdered his mistress' very wealthy husband. The case has been a three-ring media circus because the murder (and action leading up to it) took place in the Hamptons, the toney East End area of LI.  There have been all kinds of angles brought up which have sated probably every taste for the lurid:  "experimental" homosexual encounters, a very pregnant "fiancee" who *sob* "still love(s) him and support(s) him in every way for our unborn child", a jailhouse snitch, secret tapes of Pelosi's "admission", the wealth, the power, the large home, property, cars, and attendant glitter. 

This man killed someone.  Why is he getting all this attention?

Same goes for Scott Peterson.

Where are our priorities?  It's like the traffic jams caused by rubbernecking at an accident.  People need to get a vicarious thrill.  Someone *just like them* did this crime.

(ME - sorry, but Robertson is the most curmudgeonly of curmudgeons, imo. )


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 16, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I think those "well aware" folk (nicely put, by the way) believe they are smarter and more wily than the rest of us, therefore they will get away with what they do. Goes back to the white collar, middle/uppermiddle class arguments upthread. Scott Peterson looks like a nice man who couldn't possibly commit such an heinous crime, doesn't he?
> 
> We have a case here, Daniel Pelosi, an electrician who murdered his mistress' very wealthy husband. The case has been a three-ring media circus because the murder (and action leading up to it) took place in the Hamptons, the toney East End area of LI. There have been all kinds of angles brought up which have sated probably every taste for the lurid: "experimental" homosexual encounters, a very pregnant "fiancee" who *sob* "still love(s) him and support(s) him in every way for our unborn child", a jailhouse snitch, secret tapes of Pelosi's "admission", the wealth, the power, the large home, property, cars, and attendant glitter.
> 
> ...


In the end, you can say "Gee, at least there is someone who has it worse off than I do...." is a probable motive .


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 21, 2004)

AOL has a story that Peterson's attorney has set up a website asking for donations from the public to be used for investigators, not attorneys' fees.

What a country.

Would _you_ donate to the cause for someone like him?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 21, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Would _you_ donate to the cause for someone like him?


There are too many other worthy causes, I think. My charitable giving finds its places elsewhere.

Mike


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 21, 2004)

ME, I hope more people think the way you do.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 22, 2004)

There are so many appropriate threads in The Study in which we could include this next piece of information. I will post it only here, because this is the most recently accessed thread.

When dealing with any violent crime, trial by jury and conviction, I believe it is important that we consider the possibility of error ... which is only a portion my stance against capital punishment.

I found this article on the CNN website today. 

The President, when talking about National Security states that the Department of Homeland Security needs to be correct 100% of the time ... and terrorists only need to be correct once. It is, I think, a scary proposition to use that measure when dealing with executions by the state, especially when information like this surfaces.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/21/rape.exoneration.ap/index.html



> *Inmate released 17 years after wrongful conviction*
> 
> *DNA evidence exonerates Brandon Moon*
> 
> ...


----------

