Should Scott Peterson get the death penalty?

Scott Peterson convicted for killing his wife and unborn baby is waiting to hear which fate the jury had decided for him. I think they should castrate then drown him but thats not going to happen. Do you think he should get the death penalty or life in prison?

I think he can get life without parole and that be good enough, by this I mean as a former prision system employee I can assure you this man will get the death sentence even when serving life. That is because he hurt a child and killed his wife also. Crimes against nature and children are a death sentence in jail house prisioner justice courts. He will probably be dead within 30 to 90 days after hittin GP, the prisioners will hold a court of morals that has no grey area in these crimes.

Oh hell, He's just as guilty as OJ, and OJ is playing golf right now

In all seriousness, He deserves the same fate that his wife and child recieved.

I think we should take him "fishing" like he did with Lacy...

Hello:

I agree , I think the death penalty will be to
fast and almost pain free for Mr. Peterson.
They shoul give him life in prision and put him
in general population. The prisioners will make
him suffrer and probably kill him very slowly.

Normally I am for the death penalty but in this case I would say life for one reason only...

All of the evidence against him was circumstantial. They really did not have one piece of hard evidence that he did it. The chance for a mistaken conviction is slim but still there.

No, Scott Peterson should be allowed to earn his freedom enlisting for some "dirty dozen" platoon and earn their freedom by doing the most dangerous millitary missions.

Also, I would put Mike tyson in that platoon also. Scott, is good at fighting with golfclubs and Tyson could do it with his bare hands.

Even if he gets the death penalty, it could be twenty-five years before they get around to killing him. If the jury is persuaded enough to convict him, they should have the conviction to kill him.

I personally think that the jury has convicted Peterson on the basis of emotion rather than logic, which is not to say that the conviction is wrong. The lawyer/doctor who was dismissed from the trial took copious notes to use during the deliberation. When it came time to deliberate, the jury didn't want to hear it and the juror asked to be dismissed.

But, it is still Peterson who hung himself. From the beginning, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I looked at every contradiction of facts and behavior by all close to Lacy as suspicious, because Peterson was not only an obvious suspect, his philandering made him an obvious patsy for someone who might want to frame him.

However, in the end, it came down to the fact that he framed himself by his duplicity. He established himself as a pathological liar, a man with no apparent conscience. He wept on command. He orchestrated elaborate deceptions to account for his activity to Amber during the investigation. He lied to his wife, his mistress, his family, the media and I think also to himself. The man was, both literally and figuratively, a fertilizer salesman.

A death sentence would be fitting.

[edit on 04/12/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Countermeasures
No, Scott Peterson should be allowed to earn his freedom enlisting for some "dirty dozen" platoon and earn their freedom by doing the most dangerous millitary missions.

hahaha!

That is brilliant, I'd definately be for that.

I see it this way, he killed his wife and child and will have to live with the horrible memory of that for the rest of his life. If he's given life in prison then he deserves to live with that awful memory. If he feels nothing at all about what he did then he is seriously messed up in the head and shouldn't receive the death penalty anyway.

I don't believe in the death penalty at all though, so I would say that...

Would that be Ed Crane, your referring to, Nada. I love that movie. It's one of the greats and I think that this whole Peterson case rivals that film in its ironic poetic justice.



[edit on 04/12/10 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Would that be Ed Crane, your referring to, Nada. I love that movie.

Damn, I've been busted.
I guess the campaign is starting to catch steam, more people should be like Ed.

hehe, it's a fantastic movie...it just seems to get better with every viewing. There's no one like Ed.

It's one of the greats and I think that this whole Peterson case rivals that film in its ironic poetic justice.

I really didn't make that connection but you're right, there's something to chew on.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by John Nada]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
However, in the end, it came down to the fact that he framed himself by his duplicity. He established himself as a pathological liar, a man with no apparent conscience. He wept on command. He orchestrated elaborate deceptions to account for his activity to Amber during the investigation. He lied to his wife, his mistress, his family, the media and I think also to himself. The man was, both literally and figuratively, a fertilizer salesman.

A death sentence would be fitting.

Well he can be duplicitous as Satan, but isn't there a gap in your logic anyway? He orchestrated and all, but... There is no direct evidence. I agree that dying one's hair blond is suspicious, but... It's not a proof.

Originally posted by jeeze louise
Scott Peterson convicted for killing his wife and unborn baby is waiting to hear which fate the jury had decided for him. I think they should castrate then drown him but thats not going to happen. Do you think he should get the death penalty or life in prison?

I think he will get the death penalty Louise, but the question to me is "Was he really guilty in the first place?"

Stop and think about it. They had a movie out and on TV long before the trail even started. Hell the Media had him convicted 30 seconds after they printed the first reports on it.

I have wondered how many if any of the jurors saw the movie? I would hope none, but I am not sure.

My take on this is he did not stand a chance in hell of getting a fair trial from the get go. I watched some of the coverage and wish it would have been live, so I could really give a true answer.

All I am convinced of is the media convicted him, not the evidence. I am talking the Court TV reporters, we all know how biased they can be.

To be perfectly honest, if all I got to see was what the jury likely saw, I doubt I'd have handed in a guilty verdict.

Still, this is one exception that I'm glad to see panned out.

The guy repeatedly lied upon lies, had a mistress (which to me is the ultimate violation of trust), and circumstantial as it may be, the evidence points to him killing them, not to mention the lack of any other suspects or motives.

Originally posted by Aelita
There is no direct evidence. I agree that dying one's hair blond is suspicious, but... It's not a proof.

I agree. They have not even proved that Lacy was murdered.

Here's what convicted him, in my opinion:

He had a mistress.

He told her he didn't want children of his own, while his wife was pregnant.

He told his mistress that his wife was dead and went and bought a boat.

He made a bunch of concrete anchors.

The Amber Frey tapes.

He came across as a sociopath.

His wife was found in the bay where he went "fishing."

The condition of the bodies indicates that the bodies were submerged for a long time.

He exhibited a consciousness of guilt.

There is no evidence to exclude him and no evidence to implicate others.

He wasn't OJ.

Ultimately, the prosecution convinced the jury that Peterson had a motive and that no one else could have done it.

Also, Geragos promised the jury that he would prove that Peterson didn't do it and that he would even prove who did, but he never delivered.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I personally think that the jury has convicted Peterson on the basis of emotion rather than logic, which is not to say that the conviction is wrong. The lawyer/doctor who was dismissed from the trial took copious notes to use during the deliberation. When it came time to deliberate, the jury didn't want to hear it and the juror asked to be dismissed.

[edit on 04/12/10 by GradyPhilpott]

I am with you Grady. I wonder why they had to dismiss two jurors after they started to mediate and lets not forget the other one dismissed during trial. I think the first one, (in the mediation part) (the one who took the notes was a lawyer right? Who better to point out the law to other juror's then one trained in the law. I am sure he pointed out what the law was and how they had to interpreate it by what the law states.

No they did not like what he said and it became a trial driven by human emotions which was wrong. I think a fix was in and he was convicted and tried long before the trial began.

With that all said and done. The trial is over and they convicted him so does he get death or life? I say it should be life because I have doubt in my mind at this time. That is not to say that I would never change my mind if I had access to a Recorded Televised version of the actual trial so I could make a true and hopefully unbiased verdict. I say that only because I have been so exposed to the trial coverage from the start.

Is Scott Peterson really guilty?
Has anybody thought of the possiblity it was Amber Frey who committed the murder?
I'm not making that claim, it's just I heard ppl talking about it today in the soup line at the church.
So I tried a web search, but couldn't find much except this;

www.geocities.com...

It makes some interesting points.

And no, even if he is guilty, I don't believe in capital punishment.
Our justice system is too corrupt, biased and prone to mistakes.
You want pulp in your OJ.

justice.policy.net...

www.frontiernet.net...

www.theosophy-nw.org...

Originally posted by ANOK
Is Scott Peterson really guilty?
Has anybody thought of the possiblity it was Amber Frey who committed the murder?
I'm not making that claim, it's just I heard ppl talking about it today in the soup line at the church.
So I tried a web search, but couldn't find much except this;

www.geocities.com...

It makes some interesting points.

Yes it sure does. Have to I told ya so earlier today.

The link shows he was framed or should I say it convinced me.

Originally posted by shots
Have to I told ya so earlier today.

Not sure I understand your point here

The way I see it, he's leaving prison in a pine box, one way or another.
So you can give him the death penalty, and take him out soon, or you can give him life and he goes out a very old man.

The third option is that someone in prison takes him out early. I don't think he will survive GenPop very well.