Scott Petersen: Death - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #61 12-14-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Actually, it is quite simple. If you murder someone, and it is 100% provable that you did based on physical evidence, you get to die. If there is an infintismal probabilty that some evidence could emerge later that you did not do it, you get to live. Your semen in the victim's orifice, your prints on their throat, your blood in their fingernails, and you get to die,with limited right to appeal, because you are friggin guilty as hell. That is not arbitrary. It would also cut down on endless appeals, solving your cost problem, which I really don't agree with anyway. I don't know what state you live in, but I have lived in Texas off an on for thrity years, and here and in Oklahoma I have seen unspeakable crime. The lady who drowned her five kids? Lives four blocks from where I am typing this. World's record serial killer? Charlie Watson, got his sentence reduced to 30 years in a pleas bargain, killed maybe 100 women, about to get out because he served his time. Prison psyche says, if Charlie meets a women, and they are alone, she will die. I can give you examples all night, just from those two states, hell I could just do Houston. If anyone is the victim of haphazzard law, it is the victims of these monsters.

So you think you can design a fool-proof system for adjudicating these cases? If it's so easy, why have we failed so utterly and completely so far? And if you can fix the criminal justice system, why can't you fix the part of the system that lets Charlie out of prison?

KirkVining · #62 12-14-2004, 01:31 AM

That must be a rhetorical "you". I am pretty powerless, but there is actually a movement afoot to advocate what I am saying. I'm sure it will take time, but a lot of people don't like the death penalty as it is currently enforced, but there is little support for abolishing it.

koop · #63 12-14-2004, 08:20 AM

Man, KV you have all the good arguments going tonight, "if it just saves one life" it's corrollary "what if it was your loved one" the ever popular "for the children" and it's backed up by anecdotal evidence wrapped in junk probabilities.

To further your argument, ad absurdum, the probability of someone outside your family killing one of your kids is also a positive number so we should kill everyone outside your family. Of course that still leaves the bloodthirsty savages inside your family, if your's is the last family on earth the odds of someone being killed by a family member is still positive, so maybe we should kill them too, for their safety.

Now your probably willing to live with the risk that someone in your family (maybe you) might go Jack Nicholson (Shining) and kill the family. So maybe not everyone in your family needs to be killed to protect the children.

But it is all a matter of probabilities and risk tolerance and allocation of resouces. Please stop with the arguments in absolute terms.

I'm all for killing, shoot I killed a couple people before lunch yesterday, but the simple matter is our criminal justice system (and in particular your beloved republic of Texas) is broken and until it's fixed we should stop using it to kill people.

To bring it back to the genisis of this thread, look at Peterson. Can anyone tell me how Laci died? Little less whether she suffered or there were any aggravating circumstances that would justify a death sentance. And he had a good lawyer, not some Texas tax attorney making 12 bucks an hour doing his first capital case.

boneheaddoctor · #64 12-14-2004, 08:24 AM

I'm curious about all the "evidence" that made them come to this conclusion.......but I doubt we will ever know for sure what they saw.
Because from what I saw they had a few members of the jury who did not think he was guilty and they had a concerted effort to replace them with conviction minded people. Because of the quick decision after the three were replaced..........ALways seemed odd to me.

Honus · #65 12-14-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

That must be a rhetorical "you"...

I guess what I was attempting to say last night, well past my bedtime, was that your argument depends on society being able to fix the current system. I personally believe the death penalty system is unfixable, but that's just me. More to the point, though, I see no evidence that society will ever be willing to do what is needed to try to fix the system. I can see an argument for executing certain convicts who kill while in prison because there is no other way to punish that particular crime. Other than that limited scenario, abolition is the only remedy that will fix our death penalty system, IMHO.

Quote:

...but there is little support for abolishing it.

That will change, just as someday we will get over the silly GOP-driven, so-called "conservative", fad that has gripped the country for the last 25 years or so. I just hope we still have a country left by then.

Honus · #66 12-14-2004, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Man, KV you have all the good arguments going tonight, "if it just saves one life" it's corrollary "what if it was your loved one" the ever popular "for the children" and it's backed up by anecdotal evidence wrapped in junk probabilities.

To further your argument, ad absurdum, the probability of someone outside your family killing one of your kids is also a positive number so we should kill everyone outside your family. Of course that still leaves the bloodthirsty savages inside your family, if your's is the last family on earth the odds of someone being killed by a family member is still positive, so maybe we should kill them too, for their safety.

Now your probably willing to live with the risk that someone in your family (maybe you) might go Jack Nicholson (Shining) and kill the family. So maybe not everyone in your family needs to be killed to protect the children.

But it is all a matter of probabilities and risk tolerance and allocation of resouces. Please stop with the arguments in absolute terms.

I'm all for killing, shoot I killed a couple people before lunch yesterday, but the simple matter is our criminal justice system (and in particular your beloved republic of Texas) is broken and until it's fixed we should stop using it to kill people.

To bring it back to the genisis of this thread, look at Peterson. Can anyone tell me how Laci died? Little less whether she suffered or there were any aggravating circumstances that would justify a death sentance. And he had a good lawyer, not some Texas tax attorney making 12 bucks an hour doing his first capital case.

Yeah, KV, what he said.

AdMaven · #67 12-14-2004, 11:25 PM

The best forensic evidence was where the bodies emerged=the bay.

IF someone planted them to frame Peterson they would not have been anchored and would have floated to shore within a short time.

You don't try and frame someone, and the same time, try and keep the bodies from showing up where he said he was that day.

mikemover · #68 12-15-2004, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

If the death penalty deterred anyone other than the convicted murderer, then you might have a point, but your approach devotes enormous resources to preventing the highly remote risk of having a convicted murderer escape and murder again. Think of all the lives that could be saved if those resources were put to better use.

That has proven to be more than just a "remote" risk. Besides, they don't have to escape....Half the time, we LET them out.

They don't have to be let out, either...they can, and often do, kill while IN prison.....They kill guards, and each other.

I don't see how you could POSSIBLY rationalize that a death sentence for the murderer of a member of your own family would be "unjust'.....but to each his own....

Mike

Plantman · #69 12-15-2004, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by engatwork

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.

Off the original thread, but for the uninformed, OJ lives here in Miami and I have seen him from time to time.

What is amazing to me is the amount of *******s who go up and say wassup and pose for pictures with him. Everywhere he goes, young women pose and prance and kiss him like they actually knew him. Amazing! Yo uwould think women at the least would stay away considering at the very least he is a known woman beater.Never mind that he was actually accused of murder.

mikemover · #70 12-15-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

.....To further your argument, ad absurdum, the probability of someone outside your family killing one of your kids is also a positive number so we should kill everyone outside your family. Of course that still leaves the bloodthirsty savages inside your family, if your's is the last family on earth the odds of someone being killed by a family member is still positive, so maybe we should kill them too, for their safety.

Now your probably willing to live with the risk that someone in your family (maybe you) might go Jack Nicholson (Shining) and kill the family. So maybe not everyone in your family needs to be killed to protect the children.

But it is all a matter of probabilities and risk tolerance and allocation of resouces. Please stop with the arguments in absolute terms.

It has NOTHING to do with "probabilities", or the other absurd elements of your argument.

It is about absolutes: It is a KNOWN fact that a large percentage of murderers DO kill again, given the opportunity. It is also a known fact that absolutely NO muderer that has been sentenced and put to death has EVER killed again. 100% effective. Sounds like a great way to save innocent lives to me.

Mike

Honus · #71 12-15-2004, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

It has NOTHING to do with "probabilities", or the other absurd elements of your argument.

It is about absolutes: It is a KNOWN fact that a large percentage of murderers DO kill again, given the opportunity. It is also a known fact that absolutely NO muderer that has been sentenced and put to death has EVER killed again. 100% effective. Sounds like a great way to save innocent lives to me.

Mike

If the goal is to save innocent lives, we would do much better to take the millions spent on our broken death penalty system and spent it on productive law enforcement activities.

Honus · #72 12-15-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

That has proven to be more than just a "remote" risk.

Really? Can you refer me to any evidence to support your position?

Quote:

Besides, they don't have to escape....Half the time, we LET them out.

So, instead of reforming our parole system, like Virginia did years ago, you think it's better to kill the prisoners. That is about as logical as invading Iraq because some Saudis based in Afghanistan attacked the World Trade Center.

Quote:

They don't have to be let out, either...they can, and often do, kill while IN prison.....They kill guards, and each other.

As I said before, if there is some reasonable basis to conclude that lives can be saved by executing inmates who kill in prison, then maybe I could accept that approach. Unlike the supporters of the current death penalty system, I would not accept that approach without proof that it works.

mikemover · #73 12-15-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

If the goal is to save innocent lives, we would do much better to take the millions spent on our broken death penalty system and spent it on productive law enforcement activities.

No, THAT money should come from eliminating our ridiculous "war on drugs".

The amount of money associated with the death penalty is NOTHING compared to the billions that have been wasted, and are STILL being wasted, fighting an ineffective war on drugs, and imprisoning tens of thousands of people for non-violent drug-posession offenses.

The "war on drugs" has killed far more innocent people than it has saved. The death penalty has saved far more innocent people than it has killed.

Mike