Should Scott Peterson be executed?

[Dan G]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

... 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]

"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]

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]

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]

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. )

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

EL PASO, Texas (AP) -- A man who served nearly 17 years on a rape conviction was freed from prison Tuesday after DNA tests determined that he was not responsible for the crime.

Brandon Moon, 43, joined his parents, Frank and Shirley Moon, late Tuesday afternoon for a long drive to their home in Kansas City, Missouri, after his release from the El Paso County jail.

Asked what he was feeling in his first moments as a free man, Moon told The Associated Press, "Numb. Have you ever had Novacaine? It's a lot like that, just from head to toe. "

Moon, a former University of Texas at El Paso student, had been serving a 75-year sentence after his 1988 conviction on three counts of sexual assault.

Throughout his years behind bars, he maintained his innocence and said he never lost faith when others wouldn't listen to him.

"They're listening now," he said.

Moon said he doesn't know what the future holds for him.

"At least in part I'll continue making belt buckles, which has kind of kept me going over the years," he said, referring to his silversmith work while in prison. "What I'll be doing other than that, I don't know."

The El Paso district attorney and defense lawyers filed a successful joint motion in court to vacate Moon's conviction.

Nina Morrison, an attorney with the New York-based Innocence Project, said Moon would be released on $1 bond until his conviction is officially vacated by the state Court of Criminal Appeals.

Jaime Esparza, district attorney for El Paso County for the past 10 years, apologized to Moon for his wrongful conviction.

"My office and the state of Texas, in the interest of truth, recognize the injustice Mr. Moon has suffered," Esparza said.

Moon, who accepted the apology, may be eligible for compensation from the state of up to $25,000 for every year of his incarceration.

Moon's case was taken up this fall by the Innocence Project, which handles only cases in which DNA evidence can be used to prove the innocence of a convicted person.

In this case, the challenge focused on testimony by a blood-typing specialist at the Texas Department of Public Safety crime lab in Lubbock.

DPS serologist Glen Adams testified that Moon was among the 15 percent of the population who could have been the source of semen evidence presented at Moon's trial in El Paso.

Innocence Project lawyers contended that Adams' testimony implied that Moon was the likely rapist, despite the fact that hair samples and other biological evidence exonerated him.

"This case shows that the well-documented problems of crime lab error ... occur all over Texas," said lawyer Barry Scheck, Innocence Project co-director. "This is also a classic case where faulty eyewitness identification procedures implicated the wrong man."

But DPS officials in Austin disputed that Adams made any suggestion that Moon was guilty.

"During the original trial, the DPS analyst's testimony concluded that Brandon Moon could not be eliminated as a suspect," the agency said Tuesday in a written statement. "The evidence was tested in 1987 using the most up-to-date serology tests available at the time, tests that were commonly used by laboratories across the United States."

DPS also said that Adams balanced his testimony by stating that pubic hair found at the scene did not match Moon, the victim or any of the victim's family members.

The victim, who was assaulted at gunpoint in her home in April 1987, identified Moon from a police photo, but she told police she couldn't remember whether her attacker had a mustache or identify the color of his eyes.

The Innocence Project concluded that the victim misidentified Moon as her attacker.