<p>blah, death would put him out of misery. He should live and suffer.</p>
<p>Someone previously posted:
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>I disagree- in history we learned giving someone the death penalty is more expensive then keeping someone in jail for life becuase they get so many appeals and they have to pay all the lawyers. I think he should suffer in jail, knowing he will never ever get out.</p>
<p>I don't see why he should "suffer" in jail when there's no proof whatsoever that he did the crime. You simply can't jump to what punishment he deserves without proving that he's guilty. Say someone had accussed you of a crime that you hadn't committed, but some signs by coincidence indicated you did the crime...how would you feel if you were locked up for life or killed for a crime you didn't commit?</p>
<p>Frankly, no one knows whether Peterson killed his wife or not, so there's no reason why to conclude he should either be imprisioned for life or receive the death penalty.</p>
<p>Yea.. uh huh... so I guess you think OJ wasn't guilty too. If he is proven guilty, he's guilty. Sure he'll appeal, but if the evidence is piled against him and he is proven guilty its a done deal. Sorry to sound so mean. Thats just the way it works in our courts.</p>
<p>You're assuming a lot in your last post. First of all, I never stated that I believed OJ was not guilty; given the evidence, I do believe he's guilty. However, simply attacking me for my belief that Peterson is not guilty is wrong when you provide NO evidence. You're assuming 1) the courts work well (b/c you state "that's the way it works"). If the courts are so good, why are there so many people found not guilty years after they are executed for a crime? Why did the former Illinois governor release all prisioners...b/c he felt the system was right? No, of course, he didn't feel the system worked right or else he wouldn't do make such a serious decision.</p>
<p>Clearly, the system is not always right. Your post doesn't sound mean...it sounds more naaive. If you read the newspapers and followed the trial, then feel free to present solid evidence that Peterson did the crime. Right now, all you're doing is assuming there was evidence "piled against him" when there wasn't any evidence at all.</p>
<p>if this were the case of two poor peple from the ghetto no one would care what happens to the murderer... whether he lives or dies. since these were your average neighbor next door, everyone got scared becuase it can happen to any of us. i get so sickened when ppl get all psycho over these things when even worst happens (and goes unnoticed every day) im not saying that we shouldnt be outraged over this, im just saying that the amount of publicity given to this is really a shame. it sort of reminds me about those damn falcons in central park... the building took down their nest and people are hold VIGILS for them, meanwhile homeless people are freezing to death beside them. sigh. the hypocrisy is dumbfounding. vigils for falcons.
done ranting.</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn't think that there was enough evidence to convict Scott Peterson needs to go to courttv.com, pore through the detailed articles, and particularly the message boards. There are people on them that know the in's and out's of the case and will delineate to you in painful detail every bit of evidence laid out by the prosecution. They shamed me, who read 90% of the taped transcripts and watched coverage on the case every day. Go back many pages on the boards if you have to. Early on, the prosecution got off to a shaky start but finished amazingly strong. The many pieces of evidence, in the aggregate, created a clear and convincing picture of guilt.</p>
<p>Yea, I haven't really followed the case, I just assumed that the evidence was huge considering the situation. Sry for jumping to conclusions. I see what ur saying Future'MD... always glad to learn more. Thanks ttyl :)</p>
<p>don't convicted 1st degree murderers usually get around 30 years? the guys a dirtbag, sure, but this whole case just reeks of prejudice.</p>
<p>the death penalty is cruel and unjust. Just subject him to the prison population</p>
<p>Candi1657, a number of news articles have said (I'm quoting here word-for-word here): "Although there was no murder weapon or any physical evidence, circumstantial evidence came into play." (San Jose Mercury News, 16 Dec 2004 -- as well as other newspapers). Clearly, there was no murder weapon and no physical evidence. Again, as I've stated in previous posts, give undeniable evidence rather than this circumstantial bull*****</p>
<p>If circumstancial evidence is overwhelming and paints a coherent picture, the law gives you the power to convict. This is not setting some sort of unusual precedent.
There isn't clear cut forensic evidence in every case. </p>
<p>And I'm not talking about general news articles, which are simplified and generalized for popular consumption. I'm talking about courttv.com articles, which go into the minute details.</p>
<p>Face it, the prosecution was at a disadvantage because they ran their case way too long, and all studies that have studied the correlation between length of the delivered prosecution case and the verdict shows that jury fatigue yields a verdict of not guilty rather than the other way around. Yet they still managed to convince a jury to convict. Amazing.</p>
<p>And much attention was given to the tapes with Amber Frey, when in reality, that wasn't even nearly the strongest piece of evidence. The strongest pieces of evidence were how the day played out (much differently than how Scott said they did), the disuse of equipment, the tarp, his checking of the currents (but not checking of the bait), I could go on forever and ever...</p>