1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

peterson get death

Discussion in 'Serious' started by I'm_Not_A_Monster, 14 Dec 2004.

  1. belier

    belier What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed, but the appeal process is one of the only ways to bring the entire system as close to infalible as possible. If you only got one appeal, failed in it, then discovered real proof at a later date you'd be screwed. The appeal process is a rather necessary portion of the sentencing, so we can't simply do away with it altogether.
     
  2. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    The second appeal wouldn't necessarily have to be right away I should suppose... Could give them ~15 years to regather and reorganize evidence... Then have the appeal.
    I will grant that there needs to be an opportunity to appeal, but I don't think there should be one every 3 years for 50 years...
     
  3. penski

    penski BodMod

    Joined:
    29 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    8,159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Seeing as he expressed an earlier liking for vigilantes, I doubt the notion of someone being wrongly sentanced would bother him.

    *n
     
  4. Kevo

    Kevo 426F6C6C6F636B7300

    Joined:
    9 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    not for general dis me thinks ;)
     
  5. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    if you had the opportunity to kill osama bin laden, but would get life in prison, would you?

    if scott peterson could kill his wife and unborn son in cold blood, do you tink he was thinking about the future? do you think the notion of a death penalty crossed his mind?

    most civilized counttries have discarded the death penalty, but we're still one of the uncivilized ones. if you really do value human life than you think ANY death is bad; sometimes it's justified, like in cases of self-defense or euthanasia, but there is still someone left behind to cry. is scott petersons moms loss any less than Lacis?

    if you can justify murder, (and thats what it is, wheter you like it or not, it is cold blooded murder) then you are a monster. you are no better than the people who lived in towns outside the nazi death camps or the people who carried out Saddams torture or the guy who dropped the bombs on women, children, and old folks in nagasaki and hiroshima.

    if you know a murder is going to happen and do nothing about it you are guilty of a crime. scotts going to be murdered. we should make him spend the rest of his life doing hard labor for 10 cents an hour and send the money to something worthwhile, like a charity.

    death never solves anything
     
  6. belier

    belier What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, actually. He was intending to spend the future of his life with his girlfriend.

    Here's the kicker. Scott Peterson knew the punishment for killing his wife and unborn child would likely be the death penalty. He carried on with it, regardless of this knowledge. I would argue that even if you disagree with the death penalty, the fact that people commit capital crimes KNOWING that such a penalty is in place should be the larger issue. These people are knowingly and willingly giving up their right to live in order to kill someone else. The death sentence merely carries out what they already suspected would happen. It isn't "murder", it's punishment. It's a punishment they themselves KNEW they were setting themselves up for when/if they got caught.

    In all likelihood, the victim didn't decide to be killed. They didn't say "Hey, if you choke me and throw me into the river I might die." They didn't enter into the scenario willfully.

    I would agree to this if the nation-wide sentence for such a crime were life without parole. Since it isn't, the point is moot.
     
  7. Monkeyboy

    Monkeyboy Minimodder

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    719
    Likes Received:
    0
    so if it's cheaper and more civilised to incarcerate someone for the rest of their lives, then why does the death penalty exist at all? why not have the judge tell the jury if they deliver a death sentence "sorry, it's cheaper and more civilised to lock him up and throw away the key. plus it's not a deterrent. life inprisonment for him!"? i hate to sound barbaric, but some don't deserve to live. if you have done something so abhorrent that the rest of society/jury of your peers feels the need for you to cease to be, then so be it.

    i'm_not_a_monster: no his mom's loss is not any less than laci's. they are equivalent. it would be less of a loss if he got life inprisonment. she could still talk to him, visit him. kinda hard for laci's mom to do under the circumstances.

    how many of those studies figure how much the state would save if there were a limited number of appeals, and the sentence was carried out within a specific timeframe?

    what we need is a way to freeze convicted killers in carbonite... really, we could just stack them in the corner, wouldn't have to feed them, just warehouse them with a minimal number of guards, thaw them out every-so-often for appeals....
     
  8. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Exactly. Now you're getting me. You're perfectly welcome to dissagree with me there, but I had to at least get you to understand :p

    I realize there is the question "Is it worse to have hundreds of guilty people free or one innocent person dead." My solution, however, is that there are too many people in this world anyway...
     
  9. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    isn't it easier and more logical to say that the death penalty doesn't deter crime?

    fact is, even if there wasn't a death penalty he would still be caught and put away for life (and if there is any justice, never see light as a free man again) but it still won't bring Laci back, it will just cause more pain and suffering (scotts mom).

    would killing scott really do anything? thats just the easy way out

    how 'bout i put you in jail with the scum of society for 30 years and then let you out with a "sorry"

    that would piss you off

    now imagine if i killed you...
     
  10. Lukethegreat

    Lukethegreat What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Killing a human being because you dont want to pay for him to live... :worried:
    ummm
    well you know if you think taht should we also have the government kill all poor people because hell who wants to help them out?

    OH NO NOT MY PRECIOUS MONEY... :rolleyes:
     
  11. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    Before we do this, someone had better find out the percentage of executed criminals that were innocent is. Then figure out how that percentage would have jumped had they only had 1 appeal. Is that percentage, what ever it may be, acceptable? I really dont care about killing the guilty, what worries my is that in an imperfect system we have killed people that were guilty of no crime. And if that were you, would you want people rationalizing it?
    Them "Oh it's ok, as long as the most of them are guilty." You "The hell it is, Micheal Jackson was down the block visiting a catholic priest friend of his, I was just walking by minding my own buisness."
    With the courts going the way they are, do you really want your right to appeals taken away?

    And before you come back with; "It doesn't affect me, I obey the law." Keep in mind how may cases have been overturned in the last five years, where young men were simply seen in the area, and pressured by police into confessssions. I can think of at least 7 off hand. With rising parannoia in the US, with Driving While Black/Arab/Hmong cases on the rise, I can't belive you would want to revoke even more protections-especialy when the death sentence is involved. We deserve a better society then that, it was the very reason our country was founded.

    /Edit: I'm begining to wonder about how old you are, if you really understand the concept of death and what it means to other people. Horrible things have been done by people, many more horrible things have been done by governments. But to express such a callus disregard for human life puts you just a hair trigger away from those criminals you dispise so much. Have you really been so desensitized to death and violence that you want to kill innocent people to get the guilty? That is the foundations of terrorism. To not know when you might be the one that is the acceptable loss. To not have any control over your life, minute to minute. Is this the speeding ticket that is going to get you a fine or in jail for life? Think for a minute about what you are saying. And look at the people you care for, if there are any. Do you want those rules applied to them?
     
    Last edited: 15 Dec 2004
  12. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    there was a woman who was stalking david leterman, she also killed her kids. i don't remember her name, thus the description

    kids are one of the worst financial decisions a person can make, especially if they are defective (live in your basement until you die). was it OK for her to kill her kids?
     
  13. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    In case you haven't read any study pretaining to this in the last 30 years, there are not too many people. We are perfectly capable of sustaining opur population, we just chose not to. And if you have ever been to Mogolia, or the empty quarter of Arabia, we still have very desolate and empty places. I think that there are some even in Texas. There are not too many people. Especialy at the rate we are killing each other off in our own country.
    If you start this line of reasoning, you end up with the lebensraum arguement. And you really don't want to go there, you really don't.
     
    Last edited: 15 Dec 2004
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    What if you are the one innocently convicted and killed? Would you still feel the same way?
     
  15. belier

    belier What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    13 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0

    Agreed. However, I was refering more to your comment that Capital Punishment is murder. It's murder if the victim is unaware of what lies in store, or if the death was unwilling and unwelcome.

    By comitting murder knowing that the penalty for such an action could be death, Scott successfully condemned himself to a punishment that could include execution. He knew this, everyone knows this. Therefore where does the call of "murder" come into play?

    But I agree to an extent with what you are saying. In many cases and for many reasons having a murderer serve a life sentence might be better, and even beneficial to society. However, the cynic in me gets more than a little irate that my tax dollars are going to maintain the life of a man that willfully killed his wife and unborn child so that he could have a blameless affair with another woman. I don't care if it costs MORE to execute this invidividual.

    Is the system flawed? Yes. Are mistakes made? Sadly, yes. Does this make me any more inclined to allow a man that ended the lives of a young woman and her unborn baby to continue living his? No.

    This is a hard subject to discuss, because morally I sit the fence on the issues. I can agree with both sides on certain aspects. But if carried out properly, with due process of law and the benefit of decent legal council I can't call Capital Punishment murder.
    :blah:
     
  16. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    Again, as I said earlier. You suggest that a murderer is a human being. This individual SCOFFED and LAUGHED as the jury pronounced him guilty. THAT is not a human being.

    And to suggesting that I would change my mind if I were the innocent. I would be pissed off, just as any innocent person should be. HOWEVER, I understand and accept the fact that not all things are in my hands. There will be things that happen in my life that I can do nothing about. If that should happen to be one of them--sucks to be me.

    And as to me not understanding the consequence of death. I understand that quite well. After working in a nursing home you begin to realize that there's far more to it than boo-hooing and "I'm so sorry." Between understanding that everyone has their timeline of life and my religious beliefs; I am absolutely prepared to lose my life. I understand that I could have a heart attack right now. I'm in great health, but it could still happen. I could spontaneously combust. A meteor could come crashing through my roof and leave me splattered against the monitor. You can say "it won't happen, the odds are too slim" but I accept that if it NEVER happened, there wouldn't be odds at all.

    I do hope to outlive my mother, simply so that she does not have to bear the pain of burrying a child. However, I understand that my hopes may or may not come true, and that's really all there is to it. I'm not going to go kill myself, so death in any form is not in my hands.

    I see this whole situation as more factual. If one in a million is falsely accused... what are the odds that that person could have been:
    struck by lightning
    shot in a drive-by
    fallen from a plane
    hit by an 18-wheeler
    electrocuted pulling toast out of the toaster
    ect ect...
    So instead of the gang-banger killing him, the state does it. You can say that's state-sponsored murder, but I only see it as one person killed in a ruthless accident.
    The gang-banger would've had the wrong target house, just as the jury would've had the wrong criminal.

    And to be honest, as stated earlier, if the jury had to go shoot the guy afterword, they would be far more careful with who they gave the sentance to...



    Edit: as a side-note, in Illinois, which has a particularly BAD rap for commiting innocent people, 9 men were found to be innocent and wrongly accused in 30 years... How many people died from other accidents in that time span? You can say it's not the same, but if you were looking at charts and numbers, it would be. An accident is an accident, the only difference is just how careless the involved were being. And again I remind that a jury that must shoot the man is bound to be more careful, because they know he's not going to get 17 more chances to get out of it...
     
    Last edited: 15 Dec 2004
  17. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    You realize this is how they justified the death camps, the gulags, the inquisition, the hunting and capture of Africans. This is what the Hutu's and the Tutsi's say about one another. The Serbs were laughing as the rounded men up at Srebrenica. Every horrendous episode in our common history as humans started this way. Between your indifference to human life and the apathy of the current citizenship, I have a great deal of fear for my country.

    Actualy there were 13 men declared innocent in Illinois. It's in the 5th paragraph. You might also want to read the whole piece. I think there are larger numbers then you realize. 13 men. That doesn't bother you in the least, that we almost killed 13 innocent men, in one state alone? Forget for a moment the others that had their convictions overthrown due to incompetent defence laweryers, after all who needs to give suspected criminals a competent defence? That costs money. And it's not like a cornerstone of western law or anything. Never mind that 7 percent were found not guilty in a retrial. Mr. Bush signed 131 people to death, which if you read that righ, 7 percent were not guilty. 9 people. So that is what? 13 + 9= 22 people just in 2 examples. That is my HS class. All of them. None were hit by lightning, metoers or other acts of god. 1 was shot in a drive by. 21 are still alive. That is alot of people to be killing.

    If that doesn't make you worry, I dont know what to say. I really dont mind the killing of GUILTY men and women, I just think that we as citizens have a moral obligation to ensure beyond a doubt that they are in fact guilty. The acceptable error rate is 0%. If your life were on the line you would insist on that. Everyone would.
     
    Last edited: 15 Dec 2004
  18. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,653
    Likes Received:
    2,090
    I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting however, that the intellectual equanimity and poise you are displaying here, now, would disappear like snow before a supernova of outrageous fortune once the same thing was actually happening to you. Real life is not a thought experiment.

    You say it is no worse than being the victim of a tragic accident. Apart from the rather good moral and statistical arguments laid out by Jumeira_Johhnie (great post, that! :thumb: ), I would say that accidents are just that --unavoidable tragedies of chance (although any sensible person would argue that you should do what you can to reduce the risk). Innocent people being put to death however, is in my mind easily avoidable by not having a death sentence at all.

    Now I'm not saying that I haven't had fantasies about killing some ruthless criminal or seeing them executed. You work in a nursing home, I work in mental health, and some of my patients have been the victims of some spectacularly horrific abuse... But I have also spoken to abusers who were victims of such abuse themselves, before they decided to turn the tables on that relationship between them and the rest of the world. How easy it is to set out to slay monsters and become the monster oneself... This does not at all condone their actions, but before we get to the fun and exciting part of condemning, we unfortunately have to go through the necessary, but unpopular and messy part of understanding.

    And this abusee-becomes-abuser dynamic sets an interesting example for us. Should we kill murderers in a cold, calculated act and in effect become like them? Or should we still treat them with some humanity no matter how bad and dehumanising their crimes were (for both them and their victim), because, in the end, we are not like them?

    I said it before: the price of being the good guy, is that you have to be the good guy...
     
  19. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you need to re-read what I said. Mr PETERSON laughed and scoffed as the jury said "we are convicting you and suggesting you die."

    If you were being told you were about to die, you wouldn't laugh about it. No human would. One might accept it gracefully or not so gracefully, but no human would laugh at it.

    Also, you can continue to call me a monster all you want, but as said (again and again and again) if the jury had to kill them, they would be more careful with who they convicted.

    But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. The number of death sentences given had decreased for the 5th straight year, and will continue on that path. All I have to say is, when your child is raped/beaten/killed by a murderer who was let out after 30 years for "good behavior"... you'll wish I was right. And you won't accept the thought of anything less than death for him.
     
  20. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    if you killed someone in cold blood, not in an accident or anything (like if your brakes failed and you plowed through a crosswalk while the million man march, the walk for the cure, and a fieldtrip headed by nuns for genius children were all crossing the street) you should spend the rest of your natural life (and the full extent of a artificial one) in jail.

    now if you were the mechanic that worked on those brakes earlier that day and forgot to put a screw back in that would allow pressure to be in those brake lines, you should get a long sentence (after all, your negligence resulted in massive casualties)

    can you kill someone who poses any threat to you legally? prison guards can (some cops tried in the 60's, but now mostly they beat the crap out of people and get away with it)
     

Share This Page