Sound Off Saturday!
As far as the trial is concerned, I agree with Glenn Reynolds—I’ll miss it. BECAUSE When I was at a bar & saw this trial coverage on TV, I immediately knew there was no real news to be concerned about.
The US courts should (repeat: should) be able to handle trials without 100 million voyeurs. Plenty of murderers get convicted without megamedia attention.
My concern with the death penalty has nothing to do with tenderness for the feelings of these monsters. I’m for the death penalty when God does it, or when the only other choice is turning the scumbag loose. I was a Marine Infantryman in Vietnam, so don’t give me any crap about softheartedness. I do not like killing people who are not able to fight back. My concern is for the people who have to carry out the execution. They may hate doing it or they may enjoy doing it. In either case I worry about the effect on them.Posted by Guy
11/13/2004 at 10:43 AM
I think he’s gulity. That said-I’m only 2 years older than the defendant and 4 years older than Lacey. It’s common knowledge that I also have a son. I’m thinking of all the lives -both the familes of Scott and Lacey- that have been changed forever by this. Scott-who could have had his-and Lacey’s/Connor’s- life big and bright ahead of him,is looking at the death penalty. Yes, he screwed-up his life too. I think justice. was served.
Still If he had made different “choices”, well one can only wonder.Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
11/13/2004 at 12:40 PM
Unlike the Westerfield trial here in San Diego a few years back, which I followed very closely, this trial I only payed mild attention. Seems to me from what I heard and read, all evidence points to this Scott Peterson; no devil-cult boogeyman nonsense. I think he should get the death penalty.
Guy, I respect your opinion, but I have one dispute in your logic. You stated: “I do not like killing people who are not able to fight back.” To which I say, Amen. However, apply that standard to Lacey and their unborn child. Were they able to fight back? Connor certainly was not. My question to you is, then, why give Scott Peterson the consideration he did not give his victims, his wife and unborn son?
As far as concern over those who carry out the task of “flipping the switch” or whatever other methods are used, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over their mental health. I am quite certain they are of a proper mindset for carrying out such tasks to begin with, and the after-effects are probably minimal. In either case, they make choices, just like Scott Peterson made choices...and isn’t that what life, and, sadly, sometimes, death are all about?
I hear you, Illegitimi. Yes, The State can legitimately do things which, if you or I did them would be kidnapping and theft. So why not murder? (again, if you or I did it)
When you kill a human being you have crossed a line unlike any other. I know men who by defending their country have been rendered unfit to live in it. (not me)
There are times when strapping someone down and killing them is necessary, and there are times when I’d like to do it personally.
P.S. I thought he might get off—there was no single piece of overwhelming evidence, one that was a no-brainer. (was there?)Posted by Guy
11/13/2004 at 06:58 PM
ADDENDUM—The messed up phrase on the first line should be “The State can legitimately do things...”
Posted by Guy
11/13/2004 at 07:10 PM
Haven’t followed the trial because I don’t understand, don’t like the voyeuristic, trial-by-media national coverage. It’s a local matter for Pete’s sake. That said, I’m with BobF inre shades of proof of guilt. Absolutely-no-doubt monsters should be hung asap, otherwise LWOP.
For BobF, Comment #6,last line (this is not mine).. Scott Peterson singing to the tune of “Folsom Prison Blues”
I hear Bubba comin’
He’s comin’ to my cell
I know it’s gonna hurt, Lord
It’s gonna hurt like hell
********************************Anyone who murders his pregnant wife has resigned from the human race.
But how many men have been exonerated, especially of rape, by DNA evidence? After serving up to 19 years! Is it over 100 yet? I was shocked. And correctly collected DNA is 100% certain; just like the rapist having type B blood, and the accused having type A.Posted by Guy
11/13/2004 at 09:02 PM
I knew an executioner once. He was a ...
geologist full time. Moonlighted as the grim
reaper is his spare time. For the states of
Indianna and Pennsylvania. You’d have never
known to see him or talk to him. The extra
money was a boon and he never brought his
work home with him. Fairly normal dude. Bit
... cold, but hey, he WAS a geologist. I
used to worry about consigning members of
our society to being the executioner ...
makes them a murderer too. After knowing
that guy, ain’t so. No more than a soldier
pulling the trigger on a bad, bad man. BAM!
And I’ve done that. No problemo senor. BAM!He wasn’t near as weird as my mortician
friend.Posted by Steel Turman
11/13/2004 at 09:47 PM
Please explain the difference of a Policeman that shoots someone in the line of duty for being a suspected armed robber, a Judge handing down death sentences and the person actually being at the end of the line of the judicial procedure. To me nothing, I believe they are all working for the betterment of the wider community, not to fulfil a perversion of character. If we question the legality of the sentence being handed down by a group of his peers, do we then make it law that lesser sentences are to be given to all convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence...1000s....
should we all become ACLU. Where is the defining line on convictions to be drawn considering there is the option open for the Appeal process.The only person’s well-being that concerns me (as far as SP goes) are his ‘would be’ next victim(s).
The next woman that he would marry and impregnate.
Luckily, I won’t have to lose any sleep over that now!
Good ridance to bad garbage.
With all due deference to BobF, that is not a valid argument. Before I get to my main point, let’s dispense with this whole “circumstantial evidence” baloney. By definition, any evidence which is not eyewitness testimony is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, the term “circumstantial evidence” has taken on a completely different meaning in the general public from what it actually is. “Circumstantial evidence” does not mean, “not as good evidence.” Anybody with any law enforcement experience knows that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. He had blue eyes, he had brown eyes, he was six-two, he was five-nine, it was a Ford, it was a Chevy. 99 percent of convictions are obtained with circumstantial evidence. Granted, some evidence is better than others, i.e. fingerprints, DNA, etc., but one of the things that separates us from lower animals is that we can reason. We can take a series of discrete facts and put them together to come up with a reasonable interpretation of what happened. To use a totally exaggerated example, if you’re standing on a street corner, and you hear a gunshot, and you turn around to see a man with a gun standing over the body of another man, is there much doubt in your mind what happened? Guess what, that’s circumstantial evidence. You didn’t actually see what happened. Anyone who has followed the Peterson trial at all knows from the evidence that he’s guilty as sin. Which brings me to my actual point. How can one argue that because he was convicted based on circumstantial evidence, the jury can’t give him the death penalty? The jury doesn’t get to say, “Well, we think he’s guilty, but we’re a little unsure, because, you know, it was just circumstantial evidence. They vote guilty or not guilty, and if they’re unsure enough that they have misgivings about giving him the death penalty, then they should have voted to acquit. It’s that simple.
Posted by CraigC
11/14/2004 at 02:42 AM
(someone please tell me if I’m hogging the boards) This subject fascinates me, & I’m impressed with the courtesy & respect shown for others’ views.
The legal rules of evidence have developed over centuries and deserve respect. Like the infield fly rule in baseball, (or the ‘balk’ which mystified me for years) some sound bizarre, but usually have a good reason for being. This is not the treatment they’ve received by liberals since the 60’s—discovering new & exciting interpretations based on what they read last month in THE NATION.
My favorite circumstantial evidence story, and why lawyers need to learn to shut up.
SHORT VERSION: the defense lawyer keeps hammering at the witness, “Did you actually SEE my client bite off the man’s ear?” “well, no...” “SO you did NOT actually SEE my client bite off the man’s ear, did you?” “No, but...” “SO, what makes you so sure he did the act?” “Well, I saw him spit it out.”Posted by Guy
11/14/2004 at 06:49 AM
11/13/2004 at 10:36 PM
Next entry: Light Blogging Today
Previous entry: The Arafuck Oh-BITCH-UARY Contest