I am not really in favor of the verdict. I am pro-death penalty, but I've kind of decided that it should only be imposed where there is conclusive evidence - more than four witnesses to the actual act or DNA evidence that is indisputable. If there is the slimest one-in-a-million chance they might be innocent, they should get life with out parole. Under our current standards, innocent people get executed and it is just too flawed for me to feel comfortable about it any more. Petersen fell into that one-in-a-million chance category. There is very little physical evidence on this guy, but the circumstances certainly pointed to only him being guilty. In the end it may not matter - CA hasn't executed anyone for decades.

I just wish they had one physical thing to tie him to the murder. I would love to see him fry in that case. In a way, life without parole may have been a more heinous punishment for him - handsome Scotty the kid-killer would be a very, very popular guy in gen pop. On Death Row he is going to be a celebrity killer, in solitary most of the time. I really have mixed feelings about this. It is inconcievable to me, after being the father of five boys, how a man could kill his unborn first born son, and kill him in such a horrible and premediated way, and to do it to pursue a relationship with street slut, when the women he had was pure class. To just dump them like garbage. I just cannot concieve of a human being ever being created like that. It is so odd that the sheer depravity of his crime makes me think he should be spared because it just seems impossible any man would do this.

Relax guys. He'll probably die of natural causes before 2035.

Sure did. As the trial went on, he was just obviously more and more of a snake. But there are a lot of men around like that. We never did get the majic bullet in this one. If I was on the jury I would have voted to convict, as well. Just plain too many lies and convenient stories. But I really wish they had soimething more on the guy.

That was the exact piece of evidence that put me over the edge. I've grown to dislike the death penalty in my old age and I don't support the death penalty at all in circumstantial like this but I have to look at the following facts.

1. He had adequate legal council, much better than an average joe would ever get.

2. the jury voted unanimously to fry the guy and they waded through 5 months of evidence while we heard 5 minutes.


Conclusion:

I see appeals til the day he dies. Beside when was the last time Khali-fornieea fired a person?

Well, we try to set an example here in Texas. We were doing one about every three days but they have backed off of late. We thought we were going to get to do another converted Christian women this week but the gov stepped in. Darn!

The death penalty is obscene enough when administered by states with reasonably competent criminal justice systems. That the circus clowns running California's legal system could put someone to death makes my skin crawl.

Whichever way you state the Commandment - "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder" - there is no way to defend the death penalty in this country.

If he had had OJ's lawyers he would be free now.

Did I tell ya'll OJ was in Macon, Ga this past weekend? He was signing autographs at Club 32. Unfortunately, I was unable to make it.

__________________
Jim

dculkin, as I have said, it is much too broadly applied, but I still think society needs to have some sort of ultimate penalty. I also had a job years back where I saw enough of sociopaths that I came to the conclusion that even in prison no one is safe from these people - they will just kill guards and other inmates as they do all the time, and if they escape they will kill everyone they meet. These people simply must be exterminated, for logical, not philosophical reasons. Most of them end up convicted on DNA evidence, as they leave their slime trail behind them.

He was out at Macon Mall later at Belk's buying some cutlery and gloves. Probably for a Chistmas present for someone.

Rubbish. What do the Ten Commandments have to do with this discussion at ALL?

Anyway, try saying that crap to the family members of a murder victim.

Some people have reduced themselves to nothing more than murderous killing machines, and they actually deserve a WORSE fate than death...but death is the best we can do so far.



Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Precisely.

I'm actually a little surprised that you're in favor of the death penalty....

Pleasantly surprised!

But hey, you are from Texas.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Scalia likes to say that the death penalty is obviously constitutional because the Constitution states requirements for imposing it. What he leaves out, IMHO, is that the Constitution also requires due process and equal protection in administering the death penalty. No system yet devised in this country comes close to meeting either of those requirements. Until such a system is devised, then the death penalty is wrong Constitutionally and morally.

I thought he was from Boston??

It is not rubbish. You can disagree, but my comments are not rubbish.

I was unclear on that. The only reason I cited the Sixth Commandment is because I think it is a good rule, not because I think the Peterson case should be decided by it.

First, it is not crap. Second, I would have no problem telling the victim's family that the death penalty only injures them further.

EDIT: That is assuming the family was interested in my thoughts on the matter, which is a far fetched assumption.

I think Matthew 7:1 gets that one right, as well: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Before you freak out about my citation of religious authorities in a secular matter, I am not saying we should follow a particular course because I think the Bible commands it. I am just saying that my moral judgement is that I am not authorized to decide who lives and dies.

By the way, can you cite a single benefit to society from having the death penalty?