• 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..

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
I don't agree with the sentence because I don't believe in the death penalty. For him or for anyone.

People who sentence others to the death penalty (judge and jury) are narrowly better than him. Being vengeful and vindictive is wrong and there are no justifications that can ever make it right. The same goes for those who want to see him tortured.
Click to expand...

I agree. Plus there's the possibility he was never guilty to begin with. It has happened many, many times before. Those who convict and kill an innocent man have truly committed the greatest crime.
Click to expand...

true, but I doubt that many juries have *knowingly* convicted an innocent man. For the most part I suspect that they make the best judgment they can based on the information presented, which is all anyone can reasonably ask.

Jason
 
I'm not against the Death Penaly per sey but I don't think it should apply to someone convicted on circumstamtial evidence.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Why didn't his wife, friends, etc. notice anything odd about him during all those years they lived together (assuming he is a sociopath and guilty of the crime)? I find it difficult to believe that someone who has never shown signs of anti-social behaviors or psychopathology would (or could) out of the blue kill his wife.
Click to expand...

It can happen man....trust me. There are some very very weird people out there that you will never know about.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm not against the Death Penaly per sey but I don't think it should apply to someone convicted on circumstamtial evidence.
Click to expand...

I think the Death Penalty should be reserved for Serial Killers. Especially those that store the remains in their homes. Ugh!
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Why didn't his wife, friends, etc. notice anything odd about him during all those years they lived together (assuming he is a sociopath and guilty of the crime)? I find it difficult to believe that someone who has never shown signs of anti-social behaviors or psychopathology would (or could) out of the blue kill his wife.
Click to expand...


People DO notice odd behavior, but choose to not get involved for a variety of reasons, primarily personal safety and minding one's own business.

Recently a troubled young man in my neighborhood committed suicide. The neighbors all knew he was mentally unstable and was a drug user, but who wants to take on a confrontation with disaster?
 
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

It has nothing to do with being veangeful or vindictive, it has to do with JUSTICE. Justice means that you get what you deserve, and if indeed Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child, as the Jury has been convinced he did, then he certainly deserves to die.

I am always *hesitant* about the death penalty because on occasion an innocent person *could* be unjustly executed, but I suspect that such occurrences are the exception rather than the rule. The only thing that makes me hesitant about it in *this* case is that the evidence was all circumstantial. However, I am unable to summon the arrogance to assume that I know more or saw more than the Jury did; I can't claim to be in any better of a vantage point than they were for making the determination of guilt.

In any case, I won't cheer when he's put to death; I don't think execution is something you should cheer about. That this man's life has been so derailed from the proper Human life (which is to say a life of Reason, productivity, freedom, happiness) is just one more piece of the tragedy that this entire case and situation has been. Three lives that SHOULD have been happy are now lost, and many others (friends and family) suffer because of it.

Let justice be done, but let's not cheer for tragedy.

Jason
Click to expand...

/thread

:beer:
 
Originally posted by: ELP
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
I don't agree with the sentence because I don't believe in the death penalty. For him or for anyone.

People who sentence others to the death penalty (judge and jury) are narrowly better than him. Being vengeful and vindictive is wrong and there are no justifications that can ever make it right. The same goes for those who want to see him tortured.
Click to expand...

I agree. Plus there's the possibility he was never guilty to begin with. It has happened many, many times before. Those who convict and kill an innocent man have truly committed the greatest crime.
Click to expand...

Was there even ever any concrete evidence? IIRC one time I flipped through Larry King with Nancy Grace and she said there was absolutely nothing concrete against him besides some circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

It seems like he was convicted on his weird behavior after the disappearance of his wife (wooing Amber Fry and flirting with various women, not showing much emotion, changing the color of his hair, etc.)
Click to expand...

It appears he was convicted because he "seemed" like he would do it. It was so obviously convenient, right. Who needs proof when it's obvious. It seems like the jury used the ATPN logic approach to solving problems.
Click to expand...

You weren't on the jury, you don't know what was presented to them.
 
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
I don't agree with the sentence because I don't believe in the death penalty. For him or for anyone.

People who sentence others to the death penalty (judge and jury) are narrowly better than him. Being vengeful and vindictive is wrong and there are no justifications that can ever make it right. The same goes for those who want to see him tortured.
Click to expand...

A lot of the time, I see it more like putting a rabid dog to sleep.
 
He should fry for killing his unborn child. A child that the mother chose to bring into this world. I don't think he is sorry at all, I think he is sorry he got caught. For that he should fry.
Click to expand...

What do you think about abortion?
 
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
If Scott Peterson had 4 little snot gobblers at home then he should be treated differently? I'm not for the death penalty but I'd advocate that both get equal sentences whatever it may be...
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard, Schrodinger, the snot gobblers are our future. Won't someone PELASE think of the snot gobblers.

 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Why didn't his wife, friends, etc. notice anything odd about him during all those years they lived together (assuming he is a sociopath and guilty of the crime)? I find it difficult to believe that someone who has never shown signs of anti-social behaviors or psychopathology would (or could) out of the blue kill his wife.
Click to expand...

Well, there was a church going man in Milwaukee that was known to be a nice, healthy person that recently shot and killed 7 people during a church service and then shot himself because a recent sermon made him angry after he lost his job.

Sometimes you dont see it coming...
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
He should fry for killing his unborn child. A child that the mother chose to bring into this world. I don't think he is sorry at all, I think he is sorry he got caught. For that he should fry.
Click to expand...

What do you think about abortion?
Click to expand...

it's different. the baby was 8 months old. almost definitely viable outside the womb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top