• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Scott Peterson - Sentenced to Death by jury.

SaigonK

SaigonK

Diamond Member
Enough said...it will get overturned..he will get his appeal..the messed up this case...too much crap going on in the courtroom.
 
great. kill him and lets all hope we never hear about him again.

but unfortunately that's as likely as the 49ers winning the super bowl this season
 
Originally posted by: SaigonK
Enough said...it will get overturned..he will get his appeal..the messed up this case...too much crap going on in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it Johnny Cochran,

In addition, a jury cannot sentence him to anything.
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Crucial
Death by jury is still better than death by oonga boonga
Click to expand...

So does this mean the jury is going to execute him? Is it firing squad style?
Click to expand...

I didn't know jury duty involved something like that :Q
 
Enough said...it will get overturned..he will get his appeal..the messed up this case...too much crap going on in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I hope and pray that you are right. I am disturbed with the whole process, but what I found the most frightening was the sentencing. Were the jurors that certain about their conviction based on circumstantial evidence that depended upon hearsay and playing psychoanalyst? On the one hand, I am not surprised. I was expecting them to give the death sentence, just as I had the intuition that they would convict him. Frankly, it's hard not to give him that death sentence if you found the evidence convincing enough to convict him of premeditation.

But see, that's where the problem lies. People have failed throughout this trial to remember that there were two questions to be answered: 1. Did he kill Laci? 2. If he did, was it premeditated murder (as opposed to manslaughter or 2nd degree) as purported by the prosecution?

I think even if for the sake of argument we accept the first premise, it is a stretch to conclude that it must have been premeditated. Apparently, the jurors couldn't even find a motive, except independence ... yet independence from what they couldn't say. And in spite of that, they found him guilty of murder in the second degree--rather than the first degree--for the baby. The inconsistency astonishes me.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to ever convict him of premeditation, even though I think it's less probable based on evidence. However, I do not believe that at the very least he had a chance for a fair trial. If after a fair trial, the jurors decide that he's still guilty of premeditation, then so be it. His case will probably be forgotten by the crazy media, but I will try my best to follow it as it progresses. I hope he gets the chance for a new trial.
 
:thumbsdown:

A society which permits the legally sanctioned killing of its citizens is not a good one in my book...especially if it doesn't exclude minors under that law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top