Should Scott Peterson be executed?

[MisterMike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


kk

Sounds fair to me...

 

[Jeff Boler]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.
- The costs of carrying out a death sentence (including death row incarceration) were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
- Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

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]

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.