<p>Now that he has been proven guilty, do you think he should get life in prison w/o parole, or the death penalty? I think life in prison is much better. He will have to suffer knowing what he did. Plus, the death penalty is an easy way out. Why isn't it better to end the trial now without the chance of long drawn-out appeals? Life will end the trial, and the pain and suffering the families have been put through.</p>
<p>If I were in his shows, I would prefer death. I am not sure how San Quinton inmates will treat a pretty rich boy who killed his pregnant wife, but I would prefer to not know.</p>
<p>What does he deserve? Not considering the above, life in prison is the fairest. Since we really do not definitively know if he killed Lacy, I belief he deserves the right to appeal. If he is dead, he obviously cannot appeal.</p>
<p>I don't think he should get the death penalty. The case was circumstancial at best, and if I was on the jury, I wouldn't be able to convict him. Life in prision is the fairest thing for him right now. But if he gets death, I'm willing to bet he'll die in prision of natural causes before that happens!</p>
<p>Although I am largely in favor of the death penalty, I agree with alkuka... There really was no solid evidence to prove that he killed Laci. Although many of us would like to think he did (and it may seem as if he did), there really is no solid facts to back it</p>
<p>This case didnt NEED all that evidence...this was a common sense case. What kind of man would show absolutely NO emotion when he finds out he's guilty? If he was truly innocent, he would've had a fit over the prospect of going to jail or losing his life over a crime he didnt commit. I live 20 minutes away from this guy, so this was a really big case in my area, and I've followed this case sooo throughly.</p>
<p>I don't believe he should have gotten the death penalty. Life, yes. But, something in me just says no to this particular case receiving the death penalty.It just doesn't seem right, though I don't really have facts to support my side.</p>
<p>Normally, I feel that if someone takes a life, their life should be taken away also. However, that is not the case 99% of the time. Even when a person premeditates a murder, they arent considered at all for the death penalty. That's the problem i have with this case. Do I believe Peterson is guilty? More than anyone. But when there's other people who kill 4 people at a time, premeditated, and get 30 yrs, with no mention of death penalty, I find it hard to give Peterson that punishment. Basically, I'm saying that if the courts were completely equal and fair with every single case, I would have no prob with capital punishment; but in this case, I think its a little harsh.</p>
<p>Jury recommends the death penalty. I agree.</p>
<p>FenderGirl83 said: This case didnt NEED all that evidence...this was a common sense case. What kind of man would show absolutely NO emotion when he finds out he's guilty? If he was truly innocent, he would've had a fit over the prospect of going to jail or losing his life over a crime he didnt commit. I live 20 minutes away from this guy, so this was a really big case in my area, and I've followed this case sooo throughly.</p>
<p>My response: Simply basing him not showing any emotion doesn't show if he's guilty-you cannot say someone is guilty JUST because of the way they act after the crime. Say you were accussed of a crime and based SOLELY on your physical reaction , you were found guilty of a crime, how would you feel? - That argument is not valid in a fair debate. If you step into his shoes for a minute, you can see where he's coming from. He wakes up every morning with the knowledge that millions of people across the country and even the world want him to get convicted and sentenced to death - that simply is fact. When someone has so much hatred and assumptions made against him, how can he NOT accept his fate? He has twenty four hours per day to think over the events of the past 2 years and the trial - he obviously had to have come to a resolution that he would get the death penalty. More than any case in recent memory, more people have opposed him and have believed him to be guilty simply because the media said he was guilty.</p>
<p>So, tell me, if millions of people opposed you - millions - would you accept your fate ahead of time or would you believe you had a chance of survival?</p>
<p>Furthermore, as averagemathgeek and alukaszewicz pointed out, there's no way to prove Scott Peterson is guilty. Is there any scientific evidence to prove he's guilty? No, there isn't. Were there any witnesses present at the crime? No, there weren't. When there is so much uncertainity surrounding the crime, you simply cannot accuse someone of a crime, even if he was in extra-marital affair. There are plenty of people involved in extra-marital affairs in this country, but do we see the same number of murders due to these affairs? Therefore, that point being established, there simply is not UNREFUTABLE motives as to why he would kill Laci. Financial motives were disproven, as he could have gained more from letting Laci (as even the prosecution admitted earlier during the trial). And again, there is no substantial proof (phone calls, diaries, papers) that show Peterson had a motive to kill his wife.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it's a difficult choice for the jurors, since "the mob" has demanded justice yet they must take into consideration this is someone's life. Juries have been proven on a multiple number of times in a number of states that they were FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG when they found someone guilty of murder based only on circumstantial evidence. Empirical evidence only proves that the Scott Peterson trial was not fair and the outcome was not fair (although, I agree, the outcome for Laci and Connor isn't fair either), but sentencing someone to death for a crime they may have not even committed is a crime in itself. Hopefully, the courts system will see improvement in the future, and the media will not jump quickly and point a guilty finger at one person when they themselves have no evidence.</p>
<p>IMO, you kill - you die. No sense in wasting good money on keeping a nonproductive, no potiential of ever being normal, person in jail for life. </p>
<p>BUT... there are so many cases where people kill and aren't killed. How can we say that one life is more important then another and that one killer should be put to death and another shouldn't... it becomes a very sticky situation.</p>
<p>I don't really know enough about this case to make a statement about it, but I'm not so sure that it was really cut and dry. </p>
<p>and I'm not sure about charging him with two murders.</p>
<p>Just to add a quick comment, gang leaders with people in prison across the country have put out an open hit on Scotty P. He's open game.</p>
<p>In my opinion, he should be killed, but all this nonsense about "killing his wife AND A FETUS" should be stopped. but those are just my opinions.</p>
<p>Yeah, in law, you need to base a judgement on more than just "oh, he looks guilty; let's kill him". If I were on the jury, I would certainly not find him guilty, not to mention giving him the death penalty. Do I think he did it? Yes, I'm pretty sure he did. But did the prosection prove its case. No way. For this reason, I have reasonal doubt and cannot in good conscience convict a person of murder.</p>
<p>How can you STILL say he should die when I refuted that argument as invalid? I don't see you bringing up any new arguments defending your stance on WHY he should be killed...</p>
<p>Peterson shouldn't have been convicted in the first place. It was a weak case based on circumstance. As for Peterson's stoicness in the courtroom--he did what ANY good defense lawyer tells their client to do. Maybe he was too shocked to react immediately--I'm sure that's happened to many of you in other situations.</p>
<p>As for his behaviour after his wife is dead, yes it was pretty strange. But absent a murder weapon, a location of murder, a GOOD motive and a body (for quite a while), look at it from Peterson's POV: you've been having an affair and your wife has gone missing and is most likely dead. Of course he'll be the FIRST and most likely only suspect. He panicked, did whatever the hell it is he did. So what, he didn't cry. SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT EMOTIONAL. My dad's brother died suddenly of a heart attack--I didn't see my dad or my uncle cry. Doesn't mean they wanted him dead.</p>
<p>Look what O.J. did, assuming he was not guilty (if we're going by juries)--he led the police on a several-hours-long car chase (with his buddy AC), threatening that he'd kill himself. Does this sound like something an INNOCENT man would do? Probably not, yet the jury decided to forego his actions--you can't judge someone on how they react. A person's verdict should be influenced by the evidence and the evidence only. In Scott Peterson's case, there was none.</p>
<p>We are emotional creatures. And when you take ordinary citizens who are not accustomed to looking at a gruesome murder from a 100% objective point of view the verdict will have some emotion behind it. And if any doubt exists I think it is better that Peterson be found guilty and given the chance to appeal rather than being found not guilty and never have to face trial again.</p>
<p>Either way, his life is over, he's not doing anything else.</p>
<p>For purely financial reasons, I would say life in prison. The government, and taxpayers, should spend as little as possible on him. It is more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them for life.</p>
<p>If doubt existed he should have been found to be innocent. While I believe the man is guilty as sin, and I am all for the death penalty, I don't think Peterson should have gotten it. If there was something more that absolutly hooked Peterson to the muder, say maybe some DNA, then the death penalty would be warrented. While I believe he did commit the muder, I think life would have been a much more reasonable punishment. Without any hard evidence, I have a hard time seeing someone sentenced to death.</p>
<p>"What kind of man would show absolutely NO emotion when he finds out he's guilty? "</p>
<p>An interesting comparison to OJ. When pronounced the verdict against him, did anyone catch OJ's expression? He was frozen for a second, followed by unbelief -- like: "Me, Not Guilty ?", then finally realized he was given a freebie, and gestured a thank you to the jury.</p>
<p>I suspect that Scott Peterson has been deeply depressed for a very long time. Guilty or not, this case has taken an exacting toll on him. Just the wrenching testimony of his family, as they pleaded for his life during the penalty phase, would be enough to send most people pitching headlong into the abyss, as he must know now beyond a shadow of a doubt what all this has done to them. When you're extremely depressed, emotion just takes too much energy to express. Believe me, I know. Been there, done that. His lack of emotion during the reading of the vertict is no indication of guilt whatsoever----though I do indeed believe that he killed Lacy and their unborn son. It's such a sad, sad case really. Lacy is dead, a precious child never got to live, Lacy's family is devastated, Scott's family is destroyed, Scott's life is, for all intents and purposes, over (even if he is never ultimately executed). There's no good news here.</p>
<p>If he really did commit the crime, I think he deserves to die. The problem in this case is that all the evidence is circumstantial. I don't think people should be sentenced to the death penalty without DNA evidence, because there are many people on death row who are innocent and are now getting out because of dna testing.</p>