Should Scott Peterson be executed?

[MA-Caver]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

This addresses the issue of reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence well.

I personally don't believe in the death penalty for a number of reasons. #1. It is revenge rather then punishment, as Micheal Edwards explained. #2. Because many of these cases are decided on circumstantial evidence, there is still room for error. Although the perp may be logically guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence at the time, there have been some cases people have been found guilty when it was later proven that they were not. This may be very rare, but even if it is only 1 in 1000, it is worth not having the death penalty to save the one, in my opinion. #3. The death penalty is grossly ineffecient. It is ineffecient as a means to deter crime, it is ineffecient as a means of punishment, it is ineffecient in terms of cost, and it is ineffecient for finding any utilitarian use for prisoners. One arguement often made for the death penalty is that "we don't want to spend our money on murders and criminals." Well, because of the ineffeciency of the death penalty, this is a false arguement. If someone is in prison for 25 or 30 years before they are killed, coupled with the cost of putting someone to death, then you ARE spending money on them, making this a false arguement. I believe Raedyn posted some stats on this. The only solution to the "cost" issue would be to speed the process up and use a "cheaper" method of execution; however, this leads to less of a chance of catching mistakes, which brings you to my #2 arguement.

I really could go on and on here, but I'll spare your eyes. Now, I am not going to lose sleep if a criminal is killed due to an immediate need of self-defense, but I think the state doing it after they are put away is not the right thing to do.

One thing I find interesting is when I see people who feel they are "better" then "criminal scum" argue with the same thug/mob/idiotic mentality of the very criminals they are trying to put to death. "Durrr...'gimme a break'...whats up with the 'liberals' wanting to treat criminals better then they treated the victims, and so what if a few innocents get put to death...that's just one causualty over a 1000 guilty, and what's up with the 'liberals' bitching about "cost" of the death penelty (while meanwhile argueing how putting criminals in prison is an injustice to taxpayers), and hey...the punishment should fit the crime so if a dude rapes someone and eats their head then the state should rape 'em and eat their head too, and...and...yea...people are kinda like dogs and we put dogs to death all the time don't we, and uh...yea....[I could go on in case I haven't pissed off everyone yet, just let me know ]." How about 'give me a break' by giving me a logical arguement behind your beliefs instead of the same manufactured, soundbite answers(some of you have presented logic here, and if so I am not speaking to you).

On the Peterson Case

What is the actual evidence against Scott Peterson? Anybody know? I know some of it, but I actually haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this particular case myself...

Paul

 

[Adept]

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

 

[kelly keltner]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

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

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

D.

 

[Tgace]

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

D.

:rofl:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

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]

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.