It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Scott Peterson Sentenced to Death

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:50 AM

Originally posted by jessemole
by putting one to death may save 10 more lifes as a result of doing so...

This will be accomplished just as effectively with life imprisonment without parole.

But as to avoid this thread going off topic, I'd rather keep discussing that particular matter in the death penalty thread which I posted above.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:58 AM
Big up jessemole!

Most reasonable reply there, not often you see them round these here parts...

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:48 AM
A couple of points..

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
On top of that, why would he be interested in raising Amber's child and not be interested in raising his own? Maybe it was his in-laws. From what I have seen of Sharon Rocha and her "companion," I wouldn't enjoy their company, at all. I never saw an honest emotion from Sharon Rocha, ever.

Honest emotion? From a woman whose daughter was murdered and dumped in the bay? What would have qualified as an honest emotion? From what I hear, she let it all out when she got to speak in court. That is an honest emotion.

On the other hand, I can't think of any excuses for Peterson's behavior during the investigation. Why would he develop such elaborate lies for Amber's sake? Did he think that she wouldn't catch wind of a case that was getting national attention?

No excuses, other than he was a dumba$$ getting laid on the side.

If he was innocent, wouldn't he want to simplify his life dramatically? Wouldn't he want to jettison all excess baggage ASAP? Sharon's "companion" confronted him about his having an affair before she was murdered, if my memory serves. He himself went fishing on the same day that Peterson went fishing. Is there a connection there? Why was Scott's going fishing so bizarre and "What's his Name's" going fishing so unremarkable.

Jettison excess baggage? His wife was killed - time to change the wallpaper! Sell her car, and give her clothes to Goodwill. Simplify.

So the companion went fishing? Did it happen to be in the same place that SP went fishing? In the same bay where Laci and Connor washed up?

I didn't see anyone involved in this case whom I felt any real sympathy for. Something tells me that Lacy was a victim of a pathetic systemic family problem that Scott must have come to the conclusion that he could no longer endure.

Well, if he couldn't endure, there's always divorce, isn't there? Oh wait - he'd have to pay child support and have less money to chase Amber's butt around, wouldn't he?

"Could no longer endure..." How sad. Poor liitle Scotty didn't get breast-fed?


posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:10 AM
Hey I don't know too much about this whole Peterson mess. I know it's a friggin circus, that is all.

HOWEVER, the HONORABLE Rush Limbaugh, who I KNOW you all adore and admire, states thusly on his website:

"For crying out loud, if California's not going to put Manson to death, they're not going to put Scott Peterson to death."

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:29 AM
smokenmirrors, I don't really keep up with different times this has been changed in each State, (death, by 1st degree)I thought there was a time when Ca. had it in affect, removed it, and again put it back into affect... I think I remember a Grandfather clause somewhere there... Keep in mind, I'm uncertain on all of the laws regarding this.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Even if Peterson's conviction is upheld, by the time all his appeals are exhausted, experts estimate that some eighteen to twenty-five years will have passed.

I don't think he will survive that long in prison...even hardened criminals hate other inmates that kill children.....they'll have to keep him separated and on close watch to keep him alive.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:13 AM
LadyV, your right again.... as I mention this in anouther thread....

Scott would better off on Death Row... Considering there has not been but one put to death in the last 10 years.. There is over 680 others waiting their fate.. at this rate he will die of old age before it happens. If he were to get life... it will be shorten for him, after of course a few big Buba's had their way with him!

My Numbers might be off, not the results... If there were any other reasons the verdict was incorrect, he will have a lot of time to play that card, right now, he has to fold. He did that from the start of this, He never took the Stand! If he did I would think maybe otherwise. To put my life in the Hands of a Defense Team with their words, will not be more powerful then when I speak the truth.

Right now, The word that has been given here, "DEATH" Will not really change how long he lives.... That call gives him more time.. Is it worth it? Yes, it will resolve the argrument on both sides of this issue, Who is really wrong. At least he is alive now to have it prove otherwise. How much time would you want? Right now, Laci and Conner are not here to wait their fate, it was not their choice not to be, it was made for them. Now why is that? More answers are needed to explain that reason alone... If we were to realize it, then progress will be made to prevent it.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:34 AM

Its sad when our justice system had degraded to that level. There was absolute reasonable doubt in Peterson's case. No evidence. Can't be any more reasonable than that.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with the above. However, SP's own actions were really the most damning evidence. The lies, the conversations with the mistress speaking as if Laci is already dead, prior to the confirmation, then the blond hair/money fiasco. He cooked his own goose, and I for one am glad he did.

I seriously doubt he'll survive long in prison, and will likely not die from lethal injection (unless you consider a shim a lethal injection)...

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:12 PM
I'm sorry but circumstantial evidence is not enough to warrant execution in my opinion. If your going to kill some one you better be damn sure your doing it for the right reasons and not because your all emotional. Any one ever see the movie Mystic River? Perfect example of the point I'm trying to get across in my opinion here.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by boogyman
I'm sorry but circumstantial evidence is not enough to warrant execution in my opinion.

I agree, this kind of case is what life without parole is for. Anyone that has read any of my posts knows I am for the death penalty but not in this case. Although I believe him guilty you can not convict someone because you "feel" hes guilty. IMO there is a lot of room to doubt if hes was even guilty of murder, a solid gold bastard yes, a murderer no.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:21 PM
If you listen to the jurors you'd get the impression that Scott was convicted because he was emotionless. What a gutless bunch if they convict over something that lame. The entire thing was weak. Forcing out jurors that felt he was not guilty. Dismissing a juror because he wants out because he isn't in charge anymore. What kind of circus were they running? I tell you what. They needed a conviction and they were going to do whatever it took to put Scott behind bars. It doesn't matter who did it. They needed SOMEONE to take the blame. And they manipulated the system until they got someone convicted. It doesn't even matter if its the right person. As long as someone does the time for the crime.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:01 PM
I would hate it if my fate ever would lay in the hands of a woman with pink hair.

[edit on 04/12/14 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:07 PM
Again, I go back to the start of this trial, Had Scott took the position to take the stand, regardless of what is known about him, and claim otherwise of killing of his Wife/Son, would give a different opinion on my behalf. He stands in silence, I would to if I was guilty.

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I would hate it if my fate ever would lay in the hands of a woman wih pink hair.

What is it you object to Grady - the fact that she had pink hair or the fact that she was a woman? lol

Three things in this case specifically stood out that made me think he was guilty.

1. The interview with the local reporter right after Laci's disappearance - his phone rang and he never looked to see who was calling. (he knew she wasn't coming back)
2. Her body being found where he had been "fishing"
3. The fact that she was found in the clothes she wore the night before.


[edit on 12/14/04 by Bleys]

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:21 PM
This may or may not be on topic or slightly off.

This post is about the 3 Jurors that spoke for all to them, I want to make that very clear.

I just want to state that the selected individuals that spoke for all of them did a very good job.

At first I expected another circus of a media event.

This was not the case and I think everyone will agree.

Each and every person that spoke was direct and or articulate on each point.

Unlike other media replays this one was not the same. These jurors to me showed that they truly cared and they did the best they could.

What do you think?

Kindly post your replies here.

Sorry I am not aware of any other way to do this. Any suggests for future post corrections will be appreciated.]

[edit on 12/14/2004 by shots]

[edit on 12/14/2004 by shots]

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:11 PM
I have 3 questions to pose to those who agree with the sentence, so I might understand the point of view. I will probably be accused of going off topic with the last, although I would argue it is relevant. Firstly, let me say that I have not followed the trial and accept the verdict of guilt. Secondly, I believe he should suffer the loss of his freedom and live liked a caged animal for the rest of his natural life, in a prison population surrounded by murderers where there is no preferential treatment. Thirdly, he committed murder and took the life of two others, which is a high crime, but will have his own taken by state sanctioned, legal murder. The questions:

1)Why the death penalty? Since his suffering is short-lived until the day of his death. We may never know if he even feels remorse or hear his cries of pain as his life is taken from him.

2)Is it a matter of economics, where it is best to put criminals to death than to keep them caged?

The last question also has a preface. I am sure there are many pro-lifers who agree with the sentence, so this is to you. If Petersons mother had wanted to abort him, you would have been fighting to save his life back then.

3) What makes the termination of his life now that he is an adult, acceptable?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in