PREFACE COMMENTS:

Since I'm interested in seeing some debate on this topic, I'm rewriting yehoshua's initial post in the Scott Peterson thread she started to reflect the appropriate changes Jamie pointed out. I'm adding a few of my own points too.

Also, I'm withholding the question of the coincidence of Lacy's birthday because it only serves as an assumption to the intentions of the Jury. We can't really debate assumptions, can we?

THE POST:

First Degree Murder with Special Circumstances (Lacy) - Guilty
Second Degree Murder (Conor) - Guilty
Sentencing to begin on November 22nd

The verdict was announced after lunch on November 12, 2004, same day as Lacy Peterson 28th birthday. Special circumstances have been applied in the verdict making it possible under California law allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty. A double murder charge is what qualifies this case for special circumstances.

Questions:

Did the Jury make the right decision?

This case also addressed the issue of the murder of an unborn child, should someone be accused of killing unborn children if they murder a pregnant woman?

Should Scott Peterson receive the Death Penalty?

I believe they did. As I opined in another thread several months ago, one fact was overwhelming (and more than enough for me): The location of the discovered bodies of Laci and Conor.

Keeping in mind that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" (as opposed to "beyond any and all possible doubt"), I cannot get past the coincidences of events:

Scott goes fishing on X-mas Eve. Laci (and Conor) goes missing on X-mas Eve. Scott travels 90 miles from his home in Modesto to go fishing in a very specific part of the very, very large San Francisco bay. The bodies of Laci and Conor are subsequently discovered very near the exact locations where Scott said he had gone fishing.

If Scott was not the killer (or at least a part of it), one would have to believe in some kind of "Hollywood" twist of a scenario where the real killer(s) knew Scott's exact destination (alibi) ahead of time or had someone folowing Scott while Laci (and Conor) were being kidnapped and/or killed, and then planted them to frame Scott. Either that or the real killers held on to them (alive or dead) until Scott's general destination (alibi) of the Berkely Marina was publicly revealed after the announcement of her disappearance, and the "frame-up" began then. Of course the specific places Scott said he fished after he left the Berkely Marina were not immediately made public, so it becomes even more far-fetched.

Is it possible? O.K. sure! It is possible. Maybe it was all a part of GW's right-wing plot to erode Roe V. Wade by enacting the new law that considers an unborn child to be a second victim in the murder of a pregnant woman? Perhaps Moore will float it in his upcoming new "documentary"?



Over time, I lean more and more towards the conclusion that an unborn child (or fetus, zygote, etc...) is a human being with a right to life (and I approach this subject as an agnostic/atheist leaning libertarian with no "religious" thoughts on the matter), and I do believe you have two "victims" in this case.

Having said that, I suppose that under the current structure (choice) it would depend on whether the pregnant woman's latest wish (prior to the murder) was to either 1) have her human baby, or 2) abort the non-human fetus/embryo/zygote.
In the first case, there is an additional victim. In the second case, there is only the
the woman and now dead tissue.



I support the death penalty in theory, but not as currently applied. The mere possibilty (however remote) of an innocent person being wronfully executed is absolutely abhorent to me.

While I believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a fair standard for incarceration (any innocent persons convicted may loose some liberty but they hold on to life and a chance of exoneration), I also believe that imposition of the death penalty for crimes that (certainly) deserve it should require a standard of "beyond any and all doubt". I know that's a tough standard to meet, but imagine yourself or a loved-one, strapped down with the lethal injection rushing towards innocent veins. What does everyone say later when the truth comes out?....Oooops, sorry 'bout that...

Did the Jury make the right decision? I believe so. The evidence that I am familiar with was overwhelming.

This case also addressed the issue of the murder of an unborn child, should someone be accused of killing unborn children if they murder a pregnant woman? Roe's jurisdiction only extends through the first trimester. After that timeframe, it each state's decision as to whether or not the fetus is afforded protection. I'm not familiar with California law, but if elective abortions are available throughout the entire pregnancy, this case might set a new precedent. If (post 12 week gestation) abortions are only permitted in the event of a health or life risk to the mother, I see no reason why the death of a fetus wouldn't be a punishable offense anyway, as regard for the woman's health was obviously not a factor in the murder.

Should Scott Peterson receive the Death Penalty? I'm not a death penalty supporter.

Did the Jury make the right decision?

I don’t like second guessing juries. Certainly the system isn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything I think might replace it.

Other than the death of Lacy Peterson, the tragedy in this case is the fact that it’s become so public. How many nights has this not been big news on such shows as MSNBC’s The Abrams Report?

Whether or not the jury reached the right verdict, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the decision overturned on appeal. The rather late jockeying of jurors and the quick decision after the judge ordered that deliberations start anew gives rise to questions.

This case also addressed the issue of the murder of an unborn child, should someone be accused of killing unborn children if they murder a pregnant woman?

Like the issue of abortion and to some extent embryonic stem cell research, this is an emotional question. I personally don’t know when life begins, so I really can’t answer this question.

Should Scott Peterson receive the Death Penalty?



I am with Mrs. Pigpen on this one. If may digress a moment, I would like to offer an explanation concerning why I am opposed capital punishment.

Over the years, there have been many studies dealing with the deterrence value of capital punishment. A 2002 study by members of the Economics Department of Emory University in Atlanta Georgia concludes that capital punishment has deterrent value, but:



Emory University Study on Deterrence (PDF File)

One only need look at Texas which has the dubious accomplishment of executing more criminals than any other state since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1977.

The discriminatory issue hits home in Texas. Despite minority numbers. Nearly 40% of Texas 446 death row inmates are Black.

Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) Race Statistics

I did a little research on the last 20 of the more than 330 inmates Texas has executed since 1982. Sixteen people who were executed had dropped out of high school, some with as little as 6 years of formal education. (That's 80% of my sample of 20) Five of these received GEDs and the highest level of education was a high school diploma received by four. Perhaps getting a handle on dropouts would be more of a deterrent than executing record numbers of people.

TDC Executed Offender Information

Finally in this regards there is an economic issue involved. By the time someone gets to the gurney, The cost far exceeds life in prison.

Here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe.

Financial Cost of Capital Punishment

Specifically Relating to Scott Peterson:

Spending time and money with the remote chance of getting him to the gurney would be a total waste.

Texas, as I’ve demonstrated, actually does execute people.

Texas Executions by Year Since 1977.

By contrast, California imposes the death penalty but rarely carries it out. There are currently 650 people on California’s death row. Ten have been executed since 1977 and the last, as far as I can find, was in 1996. Here’s an article on the subject:



<snip>

Still Peterson will not have an easy life.



California's Death Row

Edited for much fine tuning.

My understanding that the prosecution had no "hard evidence" - no body, no weapon, no fingerprints, or anything of that sort. Nothing but circumstantial evidence which, as many reversed death-penalty cases show, can play some very nasty tricks with the defendant. Only in American judicial system a circumstantial evidence alone can be enough for a conviction. Unfortunately, combined with the death penalty, circumstantial evidence can make jury decisions irreversible.

As much as we may dislike Mr. Peterson as a person we must admit that there's a reasonable chance that he did not commit these murders (A "reasonable chance" is not 1 of 4,000,000,000 like that was in OJ Simpson case).
In our quest to not let the killer go free we may have convicted an innocent. In my book it's a lot worse.

Did the Jury make the right decision?

Most definitely. It's as obvious as that other case, several
years back, where a man murdered his wife.

This case also addressed the issue of the murder of an unborn child, should
someone be accused of killing unborn children if they murder a pregnant woman?


Absolutely. A woman who is 8 months pregnant has decided to bring a
fetus to term, thus creating a new and seperate life.


Should Scott Peterson receive the Death Penalty?

That's a tough one for me to give an opinion on. I am a strong
advocate for the death penalty. However, in some cases justice is
better served by sticking the criminal behind bars for the rest of his life.
(But, that is risky, because there is always the chance that the criminal
will be let loose at some point. )

Considering the special circumstances involving the murder of his own flesh
and blood, it stands to reason that he should be put to death. He is positively
an evil human being.

In regards to cost of D.P vs. cost of L.I.P.: That should not be the deciding
factor in such cases. Money is not the most important issue. What is best for
society and the victims is what should be the determining factor.

DP,

If Peterson were in Texas, this statement might hold water.

Peterson is in California, where there is a history of assessing the death penalty and not carrying it out. The actual execution of Peterson would be remote, even if the jury assesses the death penalty. Meanwhile, the expense of endless appeals would go on. Closure for family members would be permanently stalled. Within the context of California's current justice system, the death penalty is a waste of time, money and human emotion.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that in California the death penalty is an emotional and financial blind that leads into the darkest abyss.

That is an excellent point, BoF. However, I would suggest that the current
California justice system be revamped so that the death sentences be
carried out in an efficient and timely manner (I know, easier said than done),
as opposed to giving criminals L.S.'s when their crimes have earned them a
more permanent punishment.

I completely agree with this post. From watching news networks one got the impression that a guilty verdict was nearly an impossibility. There was no evidence that he committed the crime...as you said... no fingerprints, no weapon, no proof that he did anything wrong. All there is, is circumstantial evidence...dying his hair, having the money on the way to Mexico...which is suspicious in itself but in my opinion not enough to convict someone. It sets a dangerous precedent because emotional juries can be easily swayed without any hard evidence. The prosecution came up with some amazing theories (4 cement filled buckets to weigh the body down...although no bucket was ever found). They couldnt even get a demonstartion of a person on the boat trying to put them in the water.

All in all...with new deliberations lasting only a little while with the new jurer...things seem quite fishy. But, i wasnt there...i probably dont know the whole case.

Based on the evidence as I understand it, I would have voted to convict.

The strongest doubt in my mind was why anyone would be stupid enough to place one's self at a scene that would become inextricably linked to the crime. His alibi struck me as a sort of bizarre reverse consciousness of guilt. Looking at the alibi more closely, however, it became very plausible to me that Scott Peterson was betting that the bodies would never be found. In this scenario, the likelihood of a solidly debunked alibi becomes an unnecessary risk. By his own statements, Scott Peterson satisfied what is arguably the prosecution's toughest burden in proving domestic murder - linking the accused to a location exclusively involved in the crime.

Mark Geragos probably did his client no favor by introducing conspiracy theories but, as criminal attorneys are quick to point out, the facts in evidence dictate the theory of the crime as presented by the defense. The unfortunate effect of this, from a defendant's standpoint, is that proposing alternate suspects carries with it its own burden - much like an affirmative defense. From what I've seen through media reporting, this consisted of only vague handwaving.

For me, this is where circumstantial evidence comes to the fore. There was a clear motive - conflict arising from the affair. There were some compelling consciousness of guilt evidence such as the survival kit and cash. Added together with the litany of lies and bizarre behavior, I could easily vote to convict with a clear conscious.



In the case of a fetus in its seven-month, I draw no distinction between it and any other human life. As a consequence, I am also a strong supporter of laws protecting unborn children from abuse such as intentional exposure to illegal drugs.



I would strongly vote for the death penalty due to the cowardly nature of the crime.

I think so. Last night MSNBC showed a special on it. From the time Scott Peterson said to Laci's mother on the phone, "Laci is missing" instead of "I can't find her" to the time where he is caught talking about Laci in the past tense on a news broadcast, to his testimony of fishing in an area where the bodies were found and the lies he told his girlfriend on the side; Scott Peterson tripped himself up so many times. And that is how it should be.

If the killing is a deliberate act, yes. Disregard for the pregnancy should be punished. Drowning a kitten is reprehensible; how much more so is ending a life which by all counts is considered a brand new human being at birth?

No. It is wrong to call oneself pro-life because one values human life on one end of the spectrum (before birth) while advocating the execution of criminals. How do we demonstrate value for human life when we show ourselves to be so eager to extinguish it?

If "thou shalt not kill" is actually a commandment for all people to observe, how do we excuse the government breaking that commandment?* After all, the government IS the people in a democracy. If, barring times when people are forced to kill in order to defend themselves, our society believes it is rightfully the job of the Deity alone to take life, isn't the deliberate act of taking it on the part of government blasphemy?

Scott Peterson will not be serving five months in "Camp Cupcake" for his crimes. Natural life without the benefit of walking outside the prison gates is a severe punishment in itself. Let him spend his life contemplating how much more "free" he is without Laci and Connor there to interfere.

*In addition, what evidence is there to support the premise of the death penalty deterring violent crime?

Actually English Horn, they found not one, but two bodies.



That is quite an assertion. I would be surprised if it were true. There must be hundreds of "judicial system(s)" in the world. Could you provide a source or otherwise substantiate this claim?



Actually, we "must" admit no such thing. While in my previous post I "admitted" to the "possibility" of Scott's innocence, you and I (and others) are free to (and do indeed) differ greatly on what is a "reasonable" chance that he did not commit these murders.

I would be curious (honestly) to hear what you consider to be a "reasonable" alternative explaination for this case (being fully aware that neither you nor Scott are required by law to disprove guilt). What's your theory?

As for circumstantial evidence - I read it somewhere recently, I can't find the exact quote right now, but I promise that I'll do more search tonight and I'll try to come up with something supporting what I have posted earlier. If not, I'll apologize to American Legal System and to people who represent it.

As for "reasonable" alternative - some deranged neighbor (or some "touring" sex offender) kidnaps the poor woman, rapes her, kills her, dumps her body into the Bay. Totally random murders DO happen... Look, I am not trying to defend Scott Peterson - I don't have much sympathy for a guy who continues an affair while his wife has been missing for days - but we can not send a person to the death row based on overall immorality and "suspicious behavior".

P.S. Found an interesting article here:

Totally wrong decision, but it is the way of the world to make a person prove their innocence, even when stated otherwise. The only evidence they had was that the body washed ashore in the vicinity that Scott said he was at... not days later, not even weeks later, but MONTHS later!! I'm not losing any sleep over it, because there is a good chance that Scott may have committed the crime, but the evidence wasn't there. There was reasonable doubt in every piece of evidence. I would love to hear the the piece of evidence that was the dagger in the heart.

You know what i find the most humorous is when I watch T.V. and one person will scream, "The case is all circumstantial, with no hard evidence" then one of the other legal guys wills say something like, "Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence, even with far less circumstantial evidence!!" I will laugh so hard and think to myself "That's what Black men have been telling America for years"

Most of America wanted to convict this man, that jury pool was not going to be any different. Peterson was not able to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt so he was convicted.

I mean let's look at the facts

No blood
No murder weapon
Droop, He could have suffocated her or hit her with a blunt weapon. True!!
No evidence of struggle, No evidence of suffocation, no evidence she was hit with a blunt weapon.
No eyewitness to seeing Scott kill Laci or dump Laci out of the boat.

Hey here's a question Where did she die at???? No one knows, because there is no murder scene, no evidence that the murder occurred in a particular place.

Well, the motive there has to be a grand motive right?? Oh yeah, The Beautiful Amber Frey But didn't Scott have two previous affairs, in which he didn't plot the murder of his wife?? Why yes he did. Shouldn't this have been enough reasonable doubt to a motive based on an affair?? Guess not.

Bottom line there was something that Scott was not prepared for. This thing was so unsurmountable that Scott was destined to get the guilty verdict. I don't for a second think that this phenomenon is only for Americans. This thing is why we all know Scott Peterson did it. It's not a weapon, or a motive, or a murder scene... it is the one, the only......(Drumroll, please)..... COMMON SENSE!!! Does anyone here in AD think we need evidence to convict someone when we have common sense!!?? Every once and a while we let fluke get through, and actually require the prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, but most of us realize that common sense supersedes due process. In other words we don't need a weasely little thing like evidence to convict someone. We don't say it aloud, but we all know Scott did it... No murder weapon, no time or place of death, no eyewitness, but as Doomed_planet said



Why was it so obvious to most people but not to others. Some made the mistake of believing evidence WAS more important than common sense. WRONG!!

Leder


Leder, not that i disagree with much you say, but precedent?? I think not, maybe it just brought to light the truth of how our great justice system works.

That, in and of itself, is quite a piece of evidence. As for your assertion that
there was no other evidence, you are wrong. They had mountains of evidence,
that all culminated in a guilty verdict. (What would satisfy you? A video-tape
of the crime, as it's being committed? )



His guilt was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he was
convicted.

So Doomed Planet around what month did you learn that Scott Peterson alibi was that he was fishing in the bay?? I remember finding out in January. Is it reasonable to believe that if someone else murdered his wife they would have the same information on Scott's Alibi??

No, I don't need a video believe he was guilty, just some of this mountain of evidence. I feel like a kid, not any kid, but a special kid, from a special story. You know the story, about the emperor with those fabulous robes of luxurious silk that was invisible to all those people who were not worthy. I mean, the pressure that kid was under, I understand it now.

There is a mountain of evidence, not a video, but a mountain of evidence that shows how Peterson was a murderer. I know you're right DP. I'm just not.... quite.... seeing it. It's there, oh there!!! uhhh.... it looks like.... a... a mole hill....uuhhh I lost it. It's just a molehill from this angle

Seriously, I don't like being the type to say "you got any references to back that up" but at least give me a clue as to what this mountain is. I followed the case pretty close and I may get details mixed up or wrong, but for the most part everything the prosecution presented had valid and reasonable alternatives?

Again, he could be guilty, but it was not by evidence he was convicted it was by common sense. If I am wrong, on this just explain what piece of evidence sealed the deal beyond all reasonable doubt for you.

Should Scott Peterson Receive the Death Penalty?

There was an interesting article in this morning’s Fort Worth Star Telegram by R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post. The article confirms what I said yesterday, that even if Peterson is sentenced to death, the chances are slim that he will ever be executed. While much of the decrease in death row inmates is tied to the commutations in Illinois, only Texas and Colorado are expanding death row facilities. I don't anticipate the same in California.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov14.html

Link may require registration.

I tend to agree with droop on this one. Scott Peterson may very well have killed Laci and Connor, but I don't see quite how that was proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no question he's a bad person and a real jerk, and a stupid one at that, but that doesn't make him guilty of murder. I didn't follow the case terribly closely, but what I did hear of it certainly wouldn't have convinced me. Others I know who did follow it closely, including some criminal attorneys have commented to me that Peterson's main problem was that he had a horrible defense presented in his behalf. Based on some of the things I've heard, I wouldn't have Geragos(sp?) defend me for a speeding ticket.

Oh well, we'll see what happens on appeal I guess.

Should Scott Peterson receive the Death Penalty?

No he should not! Scott is 100% innocent - if everyone would just stop pointing fingers!! why would he kill his wife?! she was a beautiful woman carrying his first child - right before christmas! he had everything going for him - good looking and a good looking family! Hes innocent!!

I don't think anyone should get the death penalty. I don't even believe in the death penalty for terrorists.

So do you think Scott is guilty or innocent??