He's Toast!

[usa320]

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — The jury that convicted Scott Peterson (search) of murdering his wife and unborn baby recommended Monday that he get the death penalty.


Good Riddance to very bad trash. Today is a great day for justice's cause.

[OzMan]

He may be toast like he should, but I'm sure that this won't be the end of the story. All of the news channels will still probably plaster his face over their stories for hours on end every day like they do, and like they have been since the very beginning of this whole story.

Am I the only person here who doesn't give a sh*t about Scott Peterson? I have never figured out why they all decided to jump on this story. Situations like this are seemingly common in America.

Yes, it's horrible, yes he should be fried, but why did they choose this one individual story? Why not the thousands of other missing person who are found dead? What happens to them?

[usa320]

I agree totally. The news has overblown this one from the get go.

I cant understand why it was that hard of a decision for them to scentence him to death... I would of thought less about having him offed than i would think about flushing turds down the ****ter.

[Fintin]

justice may have prevailed, but do we really need to celebrate that a man is going to die?...he is still a human, he still has family that are going to mourn...you seem all to happy that he is going to die

[Aerosoul]

Yea we're pleased he's going to die! He cheated on his wife, then killed her AND his own unborn son, but a son nonetheless. Some "human."

On the hand, I get sick of seeing these high profile cases on the news each year. OJ, Peterson, Robert Blake, etc.

I am sad that innocent people like Laci Peterson are killed. But good grief, give the familes some privacy and let the jury do their job and be done with it. There are murder cases all over the country and there's always a couple each year we can't help but hearing all about.

[usa320]

justice may have prevailed,
No may have. It deifnately has.



do we really need to celebrate that a man is going to die?

Yes, yes we do...hes scum.


...he is still a human,

Bull****. Hes a monster. Hes scum. An animal.[/quote]

[Fintin]

justice may have prevailed,
No may have. It deifnately has.



do we really need to celebrate that a man is going to die?

Yes, yes we do...hes scum.


...he is still a human,

Bull****. Hes a monster. Hes scum. An animal.[/quote]

you are no better then he is when you say he deserves to die

[American Patriot]

Good. He deserves the DP'ing he will get.

[TriggerPuller]

When there is a proponderance of evidence i.e. admission of guilt,witness testimony or DNA evidence then Iam all for the death penalty.But this case doesnt have that, I think they went on emotions. Do I think he is quilty Hell yes but all I see is circumstantial evidence. If this case was an ugly woman or with an etnic background I guarantee the media would not have run with this stiry like they did!

TP

[5jumpchump]

They should hand cuff him . Bring him out to the lake . Chop his body up with a rusty axe . Put him in a plastic bag . Give him cement shoes and feed the fish with this asshole . Drinks on me ! woot

[Kilgor]

Was this guy famous or was he from hollywood ?

[Milkman]

I hate how the media sensationalizes trials.

Can we say,

I DON'T GIVE A ****

[usa320]

WE DONT GIVE A ****.

[Laconian]

I think there is a big difference between the execution of a POW and the death sentence handed down here. The POW was a combatant and after capture, unless convicted of a specific crime is not a criminal, just a noncombatant. A person indicted by a Grand Jury, tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond a preponderance of the evidence and not to the exclusion of reasonable doubt) and found deserving of the death penalty is an act of society. The jurors in this case represented the state of California. During both the trial and the penalty phase they acted on behalf of the citizens of that state.

Also, in the criminal justice system circumstantial evidence carries as much weight as direct evidence (fingerprints, DNA, an eyewitness testimony). The jury then decides if there is enough of the circumstantial evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, which in this case they did.

I am not "happy" he got the death sentence (I am pro capital punishment), but he was convicted and sentenced through the legal system and the law has spoken.

[ramy]

awsome news !

[usa320]

I am not "happy" he got the death sentence (I am pro capital punishment), but he was convicted and sentenced through the legal system and the law has spoken.

well written.

I dont celebrate the fact that hes been sentenced to death... i feel it was appropriate, but i wouldnt really celebrate it. What i would celebrate is that the justice system did its job, and the people have spoken.

[Sayeret]

I think there is a big difference between the execution of a POW and the death sentence handed down here. The POW was a combatant and after capture, unless convicted of a specific crime is not a criminal, just a noncombatant. A person indicted by a Grand Jury, tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond a preponderance of the evidence and not to the exclusion of reasonable doubt) and found deserving of the death penalty is an act of society. The jurors in this case represented the state of California. During both the trial and the penalty phase they acted on behalf of the citizens of that state.

Also, in the criminal justice system circumstantial evidence carries as much weight as direct evidence (fingerprints, DNA, an eyewitness testimony). The jury then decides if there is enough of the circumstantial evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, which in this case they did.

I am not "happy" he got the death sentence (I am pro capital punishment), but he was convicted and sentenced through the legal system and the law has spoken.

I pretty much agree with you on this. I believe that this much different from a POW being executed and also I'm not going to celebrate that this man is going to be executed but I do agree with what the court decided.

[Argyll]

I am not "happy" he got the death sentence (I am pro capital punishment), but he was convicted and sentenced through the legal system and the law has spoken.

well written.

I dont celebrate the fact that hes been sentenced to death... i feel it was appropriate, but i wouldnt really celebrate it. What i would celebrate is that the justice system did its job, and the people have spoken.




justice may have prevailed,

No may have. It deifnately has.


Quote:
do we really need to celebrate that a man is going to die?


Yes, yes we do...hes scum.

Quote:
...he is still a human,


Bull****. Hes a monster. Hes scum. An animal


More contradictions............make up your mind 320,one minute you say it's not right to celebrate,then the next you change your mind,your letting personal emotions show here.......what's it to be,because I'm confused in your answers as I'm sure others are too?

[Nizark]

The funny thing is that he will probbaly live a longer life while on death row instead of if he was in general pop. with a life sentence.

The average stay on death row in CA is 15-20 years before getting juiced

[Tate]

Yes, he'll be around for a while. In California anyone sentenced to death recieves automatic appeals. Normally a person convicted at the trial court level must show there was some defect in thier case that justifies an appeal, then, if they don't like the appeals court decision, they can pettition the states supreme court for review of the case. But in this case, assuming the judge doesn't reduce the sentence to life in prison, which he is entitled to do, Scott will get the appeals without a showing of cause.

[Kilgor]

Pretty boy scott will sure get his arse rammed in prison though :P

[Aerosoul]

Actually he probly wont get his arse rammed. On Death Row theyre al pretty isolated and protected. If he were serving life then he would be in a diff prison and more open to that umm...punishment?. open, oops, pardon the pun.

[Hoplite_V]

Scott Peterson, what bull****.

Why the hell did this case get so much ****ing media publicity. The guy killed his wife and unborn kid. It's not like we live in a crimeless country (in canada or the states). I hate to sound detached but ****, that **** happens ALL the time. Why is this case so different? (Honest question)

I'm glad he got the death penalty. I'm a huge believer in life and peace loving one another (especially if shes hot) but when someone makes the choice to take another humans life for personal gain/manolevent reasons I don't feel they serve a progressive socieity. They break socieities laws, take another persons life away. They give up their rights to life. Thats for pre-meditated murder etc..

I'm really fed up with hearing that peterson **** on the news. He was guilty, he got caught. He's going to pay. What the **** does the media have to make a huge deal over it for?

[usa320]

definately, the news media blew it up so much....

[JTAR7242]

When there is a proponderance of evidence i.e. admission of guilt,witness testimony or DNA evidence then Iam all for the death penalty.But this case doesnt have that, I think they went on emotions. Do I think he is quilty Hell yes but all I see is circumstantial evidence. If this case was an ugly woman or with an etnic background I guarantee the media would not have run with this stiry like they did!

TP
Amen. From what I've seen and read (too much for my taste), it doesn't sound like there was much at all. Her hairs on his boat? Did it ever occur to them that perhaps when you live with someone their hairs get attached to your ****? I've had my girlfriend's hairs show up all over the place and we don't even share an apartment. The prosecution character assassinated him with the Amber Fry irrelevance, and ran with it from there. I'm not saying he's not guilty, but the jury was obviously tainted by bull**** circumstatial evidence. They took longer to decide death than they did guilt, and they worked the dissenting jurors off the panel so they could submit a verdict faster.

At least soon it will be off the television and the news will have to cover something important until the next bit of fluff shows up.

[Ratamacue]

When there is a proponderance of evidence i.e. admission of guilt,witness testimony or DNA evidence then Iam all for the death penalty.But this case doesnt have that, I think they went on emotions. Do I think he is quilty Hell yes but all I see is circumstantial evidence. If this case was an ugly woman or with an etnic background I guarantee the media would not have run with this stiry like they did!

TP
Amen. From what I've seen and read (too much for my taste), it doesn't sound like there was much at all. Her hairs on his boat? Did it ever occur to them that perhaps when you live with someone their hairs get attached to your ****? I've had my girlfriend's hairs show up all over the place and we don't even share an apartment. The prosecution character assassinated him with the Amber Fry irrelevance, and ran with it from there. I'm not saying he's not guilty, but the jury was obviously tainted by bull**** circumstatial evidence. They took longer to decide death than they did guilt, and they worked the dissenting jurors off the panel so they could submit a verdict faster.
Chewbacca Defense, anyone?

[JTAR7242]

"I'm telling you, have you seen the guy? He's a seven foot tall shag carpet! You can't possibly link me to him with a hair!"

:lol:

[Beowulf]

Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!

[SeanAshi]

http://www.foxnews.com/photo_essay/photoessay_233_images/121304_peterson_sentence5.jpg

[Redux]

is it gonna be lethal injection?

[SeanAshi]

Since it's California Scott Peterson will probably die from old age.

[HooyahCQB]

The real victim in this case is Greta Van Sustern. Now she won't have a damn thing to talk about after Feb. 23. (sentencing)

[Tate]

JTAR7242 & TriggerPuller,

I get what you're saying. Actually proponderance of evidence is a lower standard than what is used in criminal trials. It is easier to find that someone did something by a proponderance of the evidence. Criminal trials, like this one, require more. They require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that if the jury finds any reasonable doubt, however small, then they should find him not guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent, and it doesn't mean the person didn't do it, it just means that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether they did it. That is why OJ was found liable in his wife's parents wrongful death civil suit against him, it was easier to prove he did it by a proponderance of the evidence, which is the standard in civil trials. His skillful lawyers in the criminal trial placed a little doubt in the jurors minds. I agree with you, granted I haven't reviewed all the evidence, but what I did see left a little tiny bit of doubt in my mind. I saw nothing slam dunk, except an ass of a husband. And that alone, with a little doubt is hard for me to justify killing someone. However, I wasn't one of the 12 jurors, so what I think doesn't matter to this trial.