NationStates Jolt Archive

So they sentenced Scott Peterson today to the death penalty. One count of first degree murder (for his wife Laci) and one count of second degree murder (for his unborn son). What are your opinions of this?

There has been a lot of talk from the pro-lifers about how if Scott got charged for the murder of the unborn child, that abortions are also therefore murder. I do not particularly agree with that theory.

But I still think he is a sick, sick man.

What are your thoughts? Bad decision, right decision?

There's two or three of these threads already floating around...

Well, to be on a jury you have to be willing to consider the death penalty. Most people in support of the death penalty are republicans. Republicans are also against abortion, so naturally they're counting the unborn son. I see it as republicans giving republicans the thumbs up.

So they sentenced Scott Peterson today to the death penalty. One count of first degree murder (for his wife Laci) and one count of second degree murder (for his unborn son). What are your opinions of this?

There has been a lot of talk from the pro-lifers about how if Scott got charged for the murder of the unborn child, that abortions are also therefore murder. I do not particularly agree with that theory.

But I still think he is a sick, sick man.

What are your thoughts? Bad decision, right decision?

I haven't even heard of this case in my isolated part of Britain.

I cant remember the particulars … but was not the son in the second or third tri? If so really it could be still argued that it was murder because it was “past the date”

Most pro-choicer (me included) argue that after the 20 week mark brain activity is really the key to humanity. So his son was killed after the 20 week mark it would be murder … if it was before that we could argue not.

I guess I see the republicans thinking this is a pro-life win but it could still be argued that the son was too old to count as a strike against the standard 20 week mark for abortion

I suppose it could also be argued that it was murder since the woman intended to keep the child. That's a little hazy though.

Personally, I'm against abortion, but I wouldn't see this as a 'Pro-Life' victory, or a challenge to abortion laws at all. I can see the reasoning behind it, but it seems a little like grasping at straws to me. I suppose it just keeps boiling down to the question of how do you define 'life'?

I'd say Scott Peterson is a horrible sick man, and that there are some sick people out there. such as the weirdos who created the following site: Free Scott Peterson Website (http://freescott.proboards38.com/)

I'm planning on going on here and giving a piece of my mind.

I haven't even heard of this case in my isolated part of Britain.
dont worry, its nothing important

just some guy who has an equal chance of actually being innocent as he does of being guilty who was convicted upon suspicions of murdering an unborn baby

dont worry, its nothing important

just some guy who has an equal chance of actually being innocent as he does of being guilty who was convicted upon suspicions of murdering an unborn baby
Ehhh even so he was pretty emotionless throughout that whole trial … that kind of chilled me more then a lot of the evidence did (that was bad enough)

dont worry, its nothing important

just some guy who has an equal chance of actually being innocent as he does of being guilty who was convicted upon suspicions of murdering an unborn baby
ohhhhhh, okay, thanks for telling me.

I, personally, feel he is guilty of the suspected crimes. I think sentencing him to death to be a suitable penalty for his alleged crimes. That said, he should not have been found guilty.

This is the prime example of what people against death sentences talk about - someone wrongfully convicted. As I said, I feel he's guilty. I believe that. The evidence does not prove, beyond doubt, that he is. The evidence is circumstancial, and last I heard, there were no witnesses to the event either. Killing him may be a 'moral' victory, if one wishes to view it as such, but it is most assuredly not a victory for the justice system.

I'm one of those "anti-death penalty no matter what" people, but if there were an argument pro-death penalty that I could see as valid, Scott Peterson is it.

I, personally, feel he is guilty of the suspected crimes. I think sentencing him to death to be a suitable penalty for his alleged crimes. That said, he should not have been found guilty.

This is the prime example of what people against death sentences talk about - someone wrongfully convicted. As I said, I feel he's guilty. I believe that. The evidence does not prove, beyond doubt, that he is. The evidence is circumstancial, and last I heard, there were no witnesses to the event either. Killing him may be a 'moral' victory, if one wishes to view it as such, but it is most assuredly not a victory for the justice system.

How the hell can you say that? Were you in the courtroom for the whole trial? 12 jurors reached the verdict of guilty. Do you know something they don't. Or are you basing your opinion on what you heard in the news. I'll let you in on a little secret: a lot more evidence was produced at trial then was stated on the news. We try cases in a courtroom, not in the media.

I'd say Scott Peterson is a horrible sick man, and that there are some sick people out there. such as the weirdos who created the following site: Free Scott Peterson Website (http://freescott.proboards38.com/)

I'm planning on going on here and giving a piece of my mind.


I wouldn't worry about that.

Look at the bottom: Total Topics: 2 - Total Posts: 2

Total Members: 1

So they sentenced Scott Peterson today to the death penalty. One count of first degree murder (for his wife Laci) and one count of second degree murder (for his unborn son). What are your opinions of this?

There has been a lot of talk from the pro-lifers about how if Scott got charged for the murder of the unborn child, that abortions are also therefore murder. I do not particularly agree with that theory.

But I still think he is a sick, sick man.

What are your thoughts? Bad decision, right decision?

Bad decision. While Scott may be a untrustworthy, cheater he did not kill her. Sadly the true killer will get away and justice will remain unfinished.

Either way, no matter the Tri-mester it should not be murder worthy. In the Old days (old testament which is the bible which Christians adhere. This action would be a fine, but Laci would stand as a good reason for a punishment).

Plus how does anyone know she wanted to keep the baby?

Having seen men who commit domestic violence, I believe it's a serial behavior. In this case, he's killed his wife (we can, for certain liberal viewpoints, leave the baby out, as they don't believe a fetus is alive).

Why, you may ask, did he kill her? Because he didn't want to be married to her anymore, for whatever reason. Pregnant, tired of her, you name it. And instead of doing the normal thing and divorcing her or running away, he killed her.

It is likely that he would do it again with the next woman. Men who commit violence against their first girlfriend or spouse WILL repeat themselves with the next woman.

So I'm not going to pay to incarcerate someone this dangerous for the rest of his life when a few dollars worth of drugs can get rid of him.

Bad decision. While Scott may be a untrustworthy, cheater he did not kill her. Sadly the true killer will get away and justice will remain unfinished.

Either way, no matter the Tri-mester it should not be murder worthy. In the Old days (old testament which is the bible which Christians adhere. This action would be a fine, but Laci would stand as a good reason for a punishment).

Plus how does anyone know she wanted to keep the baby?

Wow. This guy's out in the Ozone. I'll skip the part about Peterson not being the killer and the the last point. Maybe because it was a planned pregnancy, she was eight months pregnant when she was killed and she told everyone that she couldn't wait to have the baby?

Having seen men who commit domestic violence, I believe it's a serial behavior. In this case, he's killed his wife (we can, for certain liberal viewpoints, leave the baby out, as they don't believe a fetus is alive).

Why, you may ask, did he kill her? Because he didn't want to be married to her anymore, for whatever reason. Pregnant, tired of her, you name it. And instead of doing the normal thing and divorcing her or running away, he killed her.

It is likely that he would do it again with the next woman. Men who commit violence against their first girlfriend or spouse WILL repeat themselves with the next woman.

So I'm not going to pay to incarcerate someone this dangerous for the rest of his life when a few dollars worth of drugs can get rid of him.

Preach on, brother.

Preach on, brother.
stop feeding the trolls

Ya know, I'm as pro-choice as they get, but i find myself agreeing with that verdict. At 8 months and 3 weeks pregnant, that's a freakin' baby. And she was very much looking forward to having said baby by all accounts. The whole thing is very sad.

I still don't think he should be executed. I cannot agree with the death penalty no matter what. However, if he were to make little rocks out of big rocks for the next 25 years, I'm fine with that.

I am a little concerned on the verdict, just because I've sat as a juror on 8 cases. One was murder and the evidence given taken at face value is normally iffy, even with witnesses. They tend to say in court "they thought" something and most are really taken apart by the lawyers. So when I hear that the evidence was mostly circumstancial I do think that outside pressure plays a huge part. Trial by media is a fact, I'm for banning reporting until the decision is made. even then it shouldn't be sensationalised. *steps of soap box*