I'm aware this has been overkill on the media lately, but it's a valid topic to bring up. And because it's been such a popular story lately, I've come to the same conclusion that OSC has come to. That many media reporters are corrupt, and that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so that the media itself is as guilty as the reporters.
As for his sentance, I'm not very clear on the evidence, but from what I've heard, it is somewhat sketchy evidence and somewhat inconclusive. A friend of mine told me a quote Thomas Jefferson once said: "It is better for a guilty man to be let free than an innocent man to go to jail." And in this case, the man won't go to jail, he'll be executed.
As for the death penalty itself, I feel it is a terrible idea for a punishment. It does not stop murders from occuring and it does not stop people from wanting to murder others.
The only time the death penalty should be accepted as a form of punishment, is if the criminal is a serious threat to society. Scott Peterson is not that criminal. Somebody like Timothy McVeigh, completely different story. He deserved the penalty becuase of the destruction he had done.
I feel like a moron for relating this to the Ender Series, but if you look at somebody like Achilles, that is somebody who deserves the death penalty. A murderer of many more than just one person, and a threat to society. Again, Scott Peterson is not that man.
Lets also list what the prosecution doesn't have, a murder weapon, any forensic evidence, a cause of death. Wow. how do you prosecute someone when you don't have any of these.
And for the fact that he was having an affair, when you put it in retrospect, how much does that have to do with the idea of a murder? People have affairs all the time, and I can't recall many murders relating to affairs. If I'm wrong show me why, but I stand strong with my ideas.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree. I don't think people should be put to death on circumstancial evidence. Unless there are actually witnesses (possibily multiple) or unrefutable evidence that the murderer did commit the act, then at worst they should be put behind bars. If you just can't prove it but you are 95% sure that he did it, then put him behind bars without possibility of parole. Death is too final for something so un-conclusive. This does not mean I want to get rid of the death sentence, I still think that it is appropriate in some cases. If I were a juror for the Scott Peterson case I would have voted for him to be put behind bars without parole.
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I agree. I don't think people should be put to death on circumstancial evidence. Unless there are actually witnesses (possibily multiple) or unrefutable evidence"
Circumstantial evidence is just as reliable as any other form of evidence, if the inferences taken are logical; it really has gotten an unfair rap from defense attorneys and crappy Hollywood dramas. I mean, fingerprint, testimonial, and physical evidence can all be considered "circumstantial" at various points in time.
I'm against what happened in the Scott Peterson trial. If I was a juror, I would have nullified the verdict and at least ONE of the laws, namely the 'new one' being tried in the court of public opinion.
The real purpose of this trial was to set a legal precedent for the "Fetal Homicide" law, which is quite obviously a backdoor attempt to eventually get abortion outlawed. Forgive me, but I do not share the moralist's enthusiasm to get back to the 'good old days' of teenage girls throwing themselves in front of trucks or going to a quack and then being found in an alley in a state that would literally make Quincy's RL counterparts ill. "Fetal Homicide" is also a quite unneccessary law. I do think that if say, someone walked around slashing pregnant women's bellies with a machete, he'd be found guilty of something serious.
But even beyond the law's dubiousness, the true injustice is to Scott Peterson. He was more or less convicted of Capital Murder on Circusmstancial evidence. In this day and age, Circumstansial evidence amounts to "Prove you didn't do it" or more accurately "Guilty until proven innocent".
Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real purpose of this trial was to set a legal precedent for the "Fetal Homicide" law, which is quite obviously a backdoor attempt to eventually get abortion outlawed.
There is no need to set a legal precedent for fetal homicide. It has been th law in California since the aftermath of the Keeler case decided in 1969. 29 states have them. I'd be interested in hearing what evidence you have for such a claim.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |