Drew Petersen convicted of Murder

[Craig234]

1) He was found guilty. Therefore, he was presumed innocent.

That doen't follow.

Even in a 'kangaroo court', they 'find the person guilty'. That doesn't prove that they actually had a presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence is party implemented in our system.

 

[Craig234]

I'm from Texas. Personally, I care more about vengeance. If it goes together with the law, perfect. If it doesn't...

Also, I have no problem with the prosecution working extra hard to find this guy guilty. But this beautiful being rubbed it in our face every chance he got. Every chance he got. He never let us forget that he thought he was smarter than everyone else and that he'd gotten away with killing all these women. So, yeah, he does deserve this special treatment.

Working extra hard means putting in long hours and carefully editing arguments, etc.

Not violating principles. I don't trust Texas on criminal justice as far as I can throw them.

 

[Jeeebus]

So, yeah, he does deserve this special treatment.

As the venerable Mr. Eastwood once said, Deserve's got nothing to do with it

Do I think Peterson "deserves" to be locked up/killed for murdering his wives? Yes.

But not at the expense of cheapening/weakening our justice system.

 

[Dari]

That doen't follow.

Even in a 'kangaroo court', they 'find the person guilty'. That doesn't prove that they actually had a presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence is party implemented in our system.

Are you saying our justice system is a kangaroo court?

Working extra hard means putting in long hours and carefully editing arguments, etc.

Not violating principles. I don't trust Texas on criminal justice as far as I can throw them.

Texans don't like your kind either...

 

[waggy]

As the venerable Mr. Eastwood once said, Deserve's got nothing to do with it

Do I think Peterson "deserves" to be locked up/killed for murdering his wives? Yes.

But not at the expense of cheapening/weakening our justice system.

I think he did it. but how the state went about it was wrong.

a)it scares teh shit out of me that they can pass laws (that might be unconstitutional it is working its way through the courts actually) just for you, introduce a bunch of barred evidence without getting in trouble

then they find the only reason the jury found him guilty was because of the BS law.

I don't think he should be in jail...though i won't cry if i hear someone takes him out while in jail..

 

[Dari]

I think he did it. but how the state went about it was wrong.

a)it scares teh shit out of me that they can pass laws (that might be unconstitutional it is working its way through the courts actually) just for you, introduce a bunch of barred evidence without getting in trouble

then they find the only reason the jury found him guilty was because of the BS law.

I don't think he should be in jail...though i won't cry if i hear someone takes him out while in jail..

Don't be all self-rightous and start preaching to us, please. If that was your child you would feel the same way as I do. If you have better ideas people better than you would like to hear it. If you don't...

 

[lxskllr]

Don't be all self-rightous and start preaching to us, please. If that was your child you would feel the same way as I do. If you have better ideas people better than you would like to hear it. If you don't...

The better idea is to not fuckin' worry about it. People commit crimes every day, and never get caught. Perverting our legal system to get one extra person is how they do things in North Korea, and they try to get away with that shit here.

 

[waggy]

Don't be all self-rightous and start preaching to us, please. If that was your child you would feel the same way as I do. If you have better ideas people better than you would like to hear it. If you don't...

and if your family member was in his position you would agree with me.

 

[unokitty]

I don't understand all of the complaining about hearsay. There have always been exceptions to the hearsay rule. Here is a list of two dozen, or so, of them.

Nor do I understand all of the complaining about the law changing. After all, the law is constantly evolving. Or as one Illinois Congressman put it:

"The law? The law doesn't matter. We're the United States Congress. If we don't like a law, we just change it."

Depending on your perspective that's the way the system works. Or, again depending on your perspective, that the way that the system doesn't work.

Uno

 

[Dari]

The better idea is to not fuckin' worry about it. People commit crimes every day, and never get caught. Perverting our legal system to get one extra person is how they do things in North Korea, and they try to get away with that shit here.

I do worry about it because I am a citizen of these United States. I don't believe in letting something go simply because it did not happen to someone I know and love. It could and that's all that matters. The laws in North Korea are below the elite. That has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Garet Jax]

1) He was found guilty. Therefore, he was presumed innocent.
2) I don't remember that being in the Constitution...

1) Wrong - he was found guilty only after changing a law that allowed hearsay to be entered as evidence. Humans love to gossip and a huge human flaw is to believe what they hear as gossip. Allowing hearsay is now allowing a fundamental human flaw to direct the guilt or innocence of another human.

2) Very few of the laws are part of the constitution, but it doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers developed the legal system with that tenant in mind. Giving the government too much latitude in their application of the law is very scary especially when they "railroad" someone they are "convinced" is guilty or even worse lets someone go who they are "convinced" is not guilty.

 

[Dari]

and if your family member was in his position you would agree with me.

Actually I wouldn't. I would not put my family members above the law. Definitely not if they're killing women...

 

[Craig234]

Are you saying our justice system is a kangaroo court?

No, it's called an analogy.

Want me to explain it?

Texans don't like your kind either...

I forget who said it, but there's a remark that it's good to have enemies you can be proud of. No surprise that the enemies of justice don't care for my opposition to them.

 

[Craig234]

But not at the expense of cheapening/weakening our justice system.

However, as I said, you are begging the question.

You have to show the change was a bad change. Maybe it was a good change.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't understand all of the complaining about hearsay. There have always been exceptions to the hearsay rule. Here is a list of two dozen, or so, of them.

Nor do I understand all of the complaining about the law changing. After all, the law is constantly evolving. Or as one Illinois Congressman put it:

"The law? The law doesn't matter. We're the United States Congress. If we don't like a law, we just change it."

Depending on your perspective that's the way the system works. Or, again depending on your perspective, that the way that the system doesn't work.

Uno

Hearsay is almost worthless. On an evidence scale of 1-10, it rates a 1. Some of the examples you gave on that page are legitimate forms of hearsay depending on exactly what the trial is. It's not legitimate to use hearsay as the sole form of evidence, especially in a capital case.

As far as changing laws goes... As I previously said, if laws can be customized to the individual, you don't have laws at all. You're just making it up as you go. Maybe next time, they'll make driving a blue car a capital offense.

 

[Jeeebus]

However, as I said, you are begging the question.

You have to show the change was a bad change. Maybe it was a good change.

No argument there. The problem with the law is that it is akin to an ex post facto law - a change in the law meant to have retroactive effect to change the outcome of a particular proceeding. No, it's not exactly an ex post facto law (otherwise it would be per se unconstitutional), but it's close enough to give me pause. If I can't be convicted based on the current laws in force, then the government should not be allowed to screw around with the laws just to get a conviction.

 

[unokitty]

Hearsay is almost worthless. On an evidence scale of 1-10, it rates a 1. Some of the examples you gave on that page are legitimate forms of hearsay depending on exactly what the trial is. It's not legitimate to use hearsay as the sole form of evidence, especially in a capital case.

As far as changing laws goes... As I previously said, if laws can be customized to the individual, you don't have laws at all. You're just making it up as you go. Maybe next time, they'll make driving a blue car a capital offense.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Realize though that in the US criminal system in any given case only the opinions of the judge and jury count.

And in the instant case, their opinion was that Drew Peterson was guilty. That's the opinion that counts.

Now, he is entitled to appeal. And if he does, the system will generate another verdict.

I have no idea what an appellate court verdict would be. But whatever the verdict, it will be another example of the legal system at work.

The legal system, it works independently of mine, or your, opinions. And it also works independently of anyone's preconceived notions of fairness or worth.

Uno

 

[sourceninja]

I heard you did. people are saying you keep it.

Hell, this isn't even the first time I've heard it. I read earlier today on a popular tech forum that someone said he was into child porn.



My take on this is that he most likely is guilty, but that is not enough of a standard for me. The murderer should be free.

 

[sdifox]

First, even if one person causes a change to a rulel, that doesn't make the change wrong.
It might be good or bad. Second, you have that saying backwars about '300 innocents'.

You are seriously going to argue allowing heresay as evidence is a good move?

I don't know what saying you are referring to.

 

[wirednuts]

people get convicted through hearsay on sexual harassment suits... but for a guy everyone knows is a murderer we cant follow the same practice?

its not fucking up our justice system. its not like some judge trying some guy for his first time going to say "well, im not sure if he did it or not, but peterson was convicted over hearsay so i have to convict this guy too"

our judges dont operate that way. they actually do have discretion, which is exactly what this peterson case is.

 

[wirednuts]

You are seriously going to argue allowing heresay as evidence is a good move?

in drew petersons case, yes. hell yes.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Wow the people letting their emotions basically say the government can do whatever they please to get a conviction is exactly what is wrong with this country.

Carry on with your "if you do no wrong" thoughts....stay on this track and it won't matter if you did anything wrong, because if they say you did, you did. Then how will you feel about changing laws to fit whatever someone else wants?

There's been plenty of false convictions too where everyone just "knew" the person did it, even though the evidence didn't stack up, only to find out years later they were in fact innocent. People will never learn.

 

[Jeeebus]

You are seriously going to argue allowing heresay as evidence is a good move?

I don't know what saying you are referring to.

As mentioned above, hearsay is already admissible in several circumstances (which admittedly, most lawyers don't even fully understand). Same goes for a defendant's prior convictions/bad acts/habits (subject to plenty of caveats/requirements).

The problem isn't that they allowed hearsay. The problem is that they apparently changed the law to accommodate for the admission of evidence that would not otherwise have been available under then-existing laws.

How would you like to be driving 45mph in a 45mph zone, get pulled over by a cop and written up for speeding? But officer, I was going 45. Ya, but we're changing the speed limit to 35 tomorrow, and the punishment is now jail time rather than a ticket. Sucks for me.

 

[ImpulsE69]

As mentioned above, hearsay is already admissible in several circumstances (which admittedly, most lawyers don't even fully understand). Same goes for a defendant's prior convictions/bad acts/habits (subject to plenty of caveats/requirements).

The problem isn't that they allowed hearsay. The problem is that they apparently changed the law to accommodate for the admission of evidence that would not otherwise have been available under then-existing laws.

How would you like to be driving 45mph in a 45mph zone, get pulled over by a cop and written up for speeding? But officer, I was going 45. Ya, but we're changing the speed limit to 35 tomorrow, and the punishment is now jail time rather than a ticket. Sucks for me.

Don't try to talk sense! That's not murder!!

/sarcasm

 

[Ns1]

How would you like to be driving 45mph in a 45mph zone, get pulled over by a cop and written up for speeding? But officer, I was going 45. Ya, but we're changing the speed limit to 35 tomorrow, and the punishment is now jail time rather than a ticket. Sucks for me.

Don't speed asshole and you won't have this problem.