Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Scott Peterson is put out of our misery

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Scott Peterson is put out of our misery
Mr Xin Ku
Member
Member # 1472

 - posted      Profile for Mr Xin Ku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sure there will be a week of disucssion on the news about, "Should they have given Scott Peterson the death penalty?" but hopefully after that we don't have to hear about it anymore! I guess it gets re-hashed because somebody out there wants to watch it, but I can't imagine who.

Scott Ott at Scrappleface had this to say about it.
quote:
A California jury today sentenced Scott Peterson to death for the double murder of his wife and unborn son. The sentence sparked outrage from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

"We decry the inhumanity of the death penalty for a man who simply exercised his choice to end a pregnancy and to end the woman who was harboring an unwanted fetus," said an unnamed NARAL spokesman. "This emotional jury decision shows no respect for Mr. Peterson's reproductive rights. It's a sad day for America and may have a chilling effect on the hundreds of physicians nationwide engaged in similar work."

In related news, CNN, Fox News and MSNBC announced they would "go on indefinite hiatus due to a lack of meaningful news stories now that the Peterson trial has ended."

In a related story, [Wink]
quote:
In an effort to avoid legal battles with NARAL, the State of California has agreed to allow Scott Peterson’s mother carry out the death sentence. “She brought him into this world, and can make the choice to take him out,” NARAL president Nancy Keenan argued. “While we support the right of Scott to abort the fetus in his wife’s uterus,” she continued, “this compromise still affirms a mother’s right to end her child’s life.” Instead of lethal injection, Mrs. Peterson is expected to use more humane abortive methods , such as using scissors to puncture his skull at the base and suction out his brains.


[ December 13, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Mr Xin Ku ]

Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How provacative of you Mr. Xin....

lol

Scrappleface cracks me up.

IMO, Peterson gets off too easy. I would have preferred a life sentence on a chain gang digging ditches in Death Valley during the summer.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank the Lord this has finally been decided, although I am as against the death penalty as I am abortion, I am very thankful this is over so the news will finally stop talking about him.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? Looking forward to the wall to wall Michael Jackson coverage now? lol

Since OJ, there will ALWAYS be some high profile case that gets over saturation coverage -- hell, we'd still be seeing Chandra Levy/Gary Condit Stories had 9/11 not happened......

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mmmm *munches on popcorn* Robert Blake's trial starts next Monday.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
carmachu
Member
Member # 1691

 - posted      Profile for carmachu   Email carmachu   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
judging by his stupidity in this murder, there's not much brains to suck out....
Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh yeah.....that's the opening act for the second installment of the Jackson legal saga.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, I think he should be thrilled. CNN says he can look forward to 18-20 years on appeal, during which he spends his time in his own cell, isolated on death row. And of course, there's no guarantee that they'll ever even execute him, depending on the politics in 20 years. The alternative is a life sentence, where he gets to share a cell with a prisoner named Bubba, looking over his shoulder 24/7. I'll take the possibility of death in 20 years with a peaceful lifestyle in the interim over guaranteed hell for life.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am particularly opposed to capital punishment in cases of circumstantial evidence. OJ's case was not circumstantial but sanguine evidential -- and he's playing golf; the whatever his name case is circumstantial -- and he'll be executed ...?

We've got 100 death-row releases and more pending on DNA evidence. How many murders do capital-punishment pros have to commit before they realize that they are complicitous in murder?

And, Jason, if our prisons are bad, why? Do you really trust judges? Do you really trust juries? Do you trust lawyers? Do you trust laws made by lawyers and interpreted by lawyers? You sure have more faith in the system than I do.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll give Richard a 'Hell yeah' there. That's my problem with capital punishment, put the guy in prison for life society gets the same benefit and if in 20 years we discover an 'oops' than we let the dude out and give him a ride to a lawyer's office. Not to suggest anything one way or the other about Peterson.

Although, come to think of it, I'd extend that to anyone convicted on single eyewitness testimony. (gee, I don't think I'm going to get picked for the jury) But I'm a Michiganite, we haven't had capital punishment since the 19th century, I believe when we were a territory.

I don't really have a moral problem with capital punishment, as I'm not a pacifist, so I'm not comfortable with approving of the state being in the foreign killing market and tut-tuting the domestic.

Dan
(soundtrack "Ohio" by Over the Rhine)

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Never been able to figure out why this was a high profile case. Can anyone tell me why? (I'm ignorant - not been following the case)

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sunil Carspecken
Member
Member # 1453

 - posted      Profile for Sunil Carspecken     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You realize they'll find some other stupid thing to focus on after the Scott Peterson thing goes away right?

Good way to avoid that stuff is don't watch cable news. Cable news is crap (have to admit I turn to it occasionally though).

Posts: 333 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And, Jason, if our prisons are bad, why?"

My guess is society either doesn't care, or does care, and LIKES them that way. You have to admit, the prospect of getting gang raped definitely makes a good deterrent to a lot of people.

"Do you really trust judges?"

I trust the judges to do what they think is right, for the most part. I am not so naive that I don't think politics or ego ever gets involved, but I see no reason to mistrust them.

"Do you really trust juries?"

That's a different question. After OJ, I think it's very difficult to trust juries, one way or the other. It's quite clear to me that we're not exactly dealing with the pick of the litter with these types.

"Do you trust lawyers?"

I trust lawyers on both sides to do their best to win at all costs. If both sides have comparable resources, then I trust that there will be a satisfactory outcome.

"Do you trust laws made by lawyers and interpreted by lawyers? You sure have more faith in the system than I do."

In the criminal law, yes, I trust law interpreted by lawyers. Criminal law is one of the few areas of law where I can read the text books and cases and not choke on my own contempt for the system. (Keep in mind though, I am in Canada, so there are some difference between our laws) Unlike tort law and family law, which have become rancid cesspools thanks to sheister lawyers, greedy plaintiffs, and activist judges trying to warp the law to fit their own political agendas, criminal law is still reasonably intact. Not 100% intact, as there are still some wacko (read: feminist) judges making some stupid rulings in the area of rape shields and such, but it's mostly sensible.

Frankly, I find it ironic that you make the argument that you do Richard, assuming you are anti capital punishment, as it appears you are. Our system is probably more skewed towards the rights of the accused than any system in the world, and probably any system in history. We built our system on the "better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be imprisoned" principle, and it shows. The list of things the police are NOT allowed to do, combined with the list of rights the accused is given could fill up a phone book or two. We bend over backwards to give the accused every advantage possible. Heck, they said it on CNN: Peterson will probably spend the next 20 years on appeal before he even has to THINK about a lethal injection. (by the time he comes up for execution, they'll probably be using phasers) Honestly, if you are convicted in this system, you are probably not only guilty of this crime, but at least 6 others just like it [Smile]

[ December 14, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ed
Member
Member # 1673

 - posted      Profile for ed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
firedrake queried: "never been able to figure out why this was a high profile case. can anyone tell me why?"

fnord.

ed

Posts: 219 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I am particularly opposed to capital punishment in cases of circumstantial 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.

quote:
"Mmmm *munches on popcorn* Robert Blake's trial starts next Monday."
Ah, the curse of the Little Rascals comes back to haunt us all.

[ December 14, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kidzmom
Member
Member # 2015

 - posted      Profile for kidzmom   Email kidzmom   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"never been able to figure out why this was a high profile case. can anyone tell me why?"

I think it's because:
*as was pointed out, the public has become "addicted" to high-profile, "scandalous" cases (ever noticed how many "court" shows are on tv?)

*it was a truly horrid crime, committed during a traditional season of goodwill--natural opposites

*it was seen as providing a "test case" (rightly or wrongly) for granting an unborn child legal status--the more vocal pro-abortion groups were all up in arms, fearing that recognizing little Conner as a person, and trying this as a double homicide, would strengthen pro-life legal arguments.

Posts: 490 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"never been able to figure out why this was a high profile case. can anyone tell me why?"

kidzmom offered accurate reasons, but IMO there is no good reason.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"never been able to figure out why this was a high profile case. can anyone tell me why?"

Scott, Laci, and Amber were extremely photogenic. Ugly people tend not to get the same amount of air time.

Or am I just being cynical?

Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1