Peterson Guilty

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-13 01:51am

While I don't think he should get death penality, since I don't believe in it, I am glad he got nailed. I think he did it.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-11-13 01:58am

I still don't know what this case is about. What is it about?

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-11-13 02:01am

StarshipTitanic wrote:I still don't know what this case is about. What is it about?

He counterfeited some money and his wife got plugged by dope dealers when they found out she'd paid for her smack in fake bills.

SSSHHH! Nobody correct me.

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2004-11-13 02:18am

The man demonstrates an unwillingness to undertake the commitment neccisary for marriage and father hood. Buys a boat and lies about where he's going the day his wife disapears. Is found the next day far from home, heading for the border, in disguise, with a fake ID... Thouroughness in destroying evidence does not for a second make me doubt that this scumbag killed his wife and child. They can play the mysterious van and satanic cult tune all night if they want, but the son of a bitch killed his fmaily and deserves to rot in a hole until he gets executed or dies of old age.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-11-13 03:17am

His activities and words speak for themselves, IMO. The defense was never able to explain why Scott Peterson was fishing around the same area that Laci and Conner were found, not to mention all the evidence mentioned above, and this isn't even taking into account his affair with Amber Frey.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-11-13 04:34am

I'm glad that Peterson got convicted. As for the penalty, I can only think of one.

Captain Kruger · Post by **Captain Kruger** » 2004-11-13 08:05am

Master of Ossus wrote:Jurors are stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid.

Yes they are. A co-worker of mine once said that if he found himself the defendant in a criminal trial, he would waive the jury and allow his honor to pass judgment on him directly. I'm thinking that wouldn't be a bad idea.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-11-13 08:59am

I read on CNN a few nights back that the highest cause of death for pregnant women is murder. In light of that, while I didnt like all the hype this case got, if it opens peoples eyes to this problem, at least all the hype wont go to waste.

egyptfrk · Post by **egyptfrk** » 2004-11-13 06:04pm

Thank you Laci and Connor's Law....
I believe he is guilty, but I have some issues with the murder charge for their unborn child. To date there is no official agreement as to when life begins, i.e. it has not been legally defined. Its just a bit hard for me to understand how someone can be charged with murder/manslaughter if the victim was never officially 'alive' according to legal standards.

Also agreed on yes it was a gruesome crime, however, I am against the death penalty. Its expensive and extremely inhumane regardless of his actions.

On another note, if anything good has come out of this case, it has definately helped to expand the dialogue on domestic/relationship violence.

Captain Kruger · Post by **Captain Kruger** » 2004-11-13 08:16pm

Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:Thank you Laci and Connor's Law....
I believe he is guilty, but I have some issues with the murder charge for their unborn child. To date there is no official agreement as to when life begins, i.e. it has not been legally defined. Its just a bit hard for me to understand how someone can be charged with murder/manslaughter if the victim was never officially 'alive' according to legal standards.

Yeah, this opens up a nice little gray area for the fundie nutjob pro-lifers to pounce on, doesn't it? I can hear them now...

"If Laci Peterson's baby was a living being, then what about all the others that are being aborted?! Murderers!!! Murderers!!! Murderers!!!"

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-13 08:33pm

Captain Kruger wrote:
Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:Thank you Laci and Connor's Law....
I believe he is guilty, but I have some issues with the murder charge for their unborn child. To date there is no official agreement as to when life begins, i.e. it has not been legally defined. Its just a bit hard for me to understand how someone can be charged with murder/manslaughter if the victim was never officially 'alive' according to legal standards.
Yeah, this opens up a nice little gray area for the fundie nutjob pro-lifers to pounce on, doesn't it? I can hear them now...

"If Laci Peterson's baby was a living being, then what about all the others that are being aborted?! Murderers!!! Murderers!!! Murderers!!!"

They're probably already doing that. It's not as if fundie nutjobs need all that much inspiration.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-11-15 12:46am

I think the baby in question was in the 8th month, which doesn't give the fundies any more ground.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-15 01:23am

Captain Kruger wrote:
Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:Thank you Laci and Connor's Law....
I believe he is guilty, but I have some issues with the murder charge for their unborn child. To date there is no official agreement as to when life begins, i.e. it has not been legally defined. Its just a bit hard for me to understand how someone can be charged with murder/manslaughter if the victim was never officially 'alive' according to legal standards.
Yeah, this opens up a nice little gray area for the fundie nutjob pro-lifers to pounce on, doesn't it? I can hear them now...

"If Laci Peterson's baby was a living being, then what about all the others that are being aborted?! Murderers!!! Murderers!!! Murderers!!!"

What is the problem with that? If Laci had aborted the baby at the same time, it would have been fine. But since SHE hadn't made the decision, it's suddenly a person and able to be murdered.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-11-15 01:25am

Isn't the murder of the wife enough to get the death penalty? In some ways I wonder why they choose to charge him with the death of the unborn child. It seems somewhat risky. Though I suppose that even if they didn't get a conviction on that they still had the wife.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-11-15 02:12am

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Captain Kruger wrote:
Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:Thank you Laci and Connor's Law....
I believe he is guilty, but I have some issues with the murder charge for their unborn child. To date there is no official agreement as to when life begins, i.e. it has not been legally defined. Its just a bit hard for me to understand how someone can be charged with murder/manslaughter if the victim was never officially 'alive' according to legal standards.
Yeah, this opens up a nice little gray area for the fundie nutjob pro-lifers to pounce on, doesn't it? I can hear them now...

"If Laci Peterson's baby was a living being, then what about all the others that are being aborted?! Murderers!!! Murderers!!! Murderers!!!"
What is the problem with that? If Laci had aborted the baby at the same time, it would have been fine. But since SHE hadn't made the decision, it's suddenly a person and able to be murdered.

Sigh:

Journal of the American Medical Association wrote:Late-term abortion.

Epner JE, Jonas HS, Seckinger DL.

Group on Science, Technology, and Public Health, American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill 60610, USA.

Recent proposed federal legislation banning certain abortion procedures, particularly intact dilatation and extraction, would modify the US Criminal Code such that physicians performing these procedures would be liable for monetary and statutory damages. Clarification of medical procedures is important because some of the procedures used to induce abortion prior to viability are identical or similar to postviability procedures. This article reviews the scientific and medical information on late-term abortion and late-term abortion techniques and includes data on the prevalence of late-term abortion, abortion-related mortality and morbidity rates, and legal issues regarding fetal viability and the balance of maternal and fetal interests. According to enacted American Medical Association (AMA) policy, the use of appropriate medical terminology is critical in defining late-term abortion procedures, particularly intact dilatation and extraction, which is a variant of but distinct from dilatation and evacuation. The AMA recommends that the intact dilatation and extraction procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman and that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Major medical societies are urged to collaborate on clinical guidelines on late-term abortion techniques and circumstances that conform to standards of good medical practice. More research on the advantages and disadvantages of specific abortion procedures would help physicians make informed choices about specific abortion procedures. Expanded ongoing data surveillance systems estimating the prevalence of abortion are also needed.

Legal, and more importantly, medical restrictions already exist on the application of late-term abortion procedure. It's not as if any woman can simply go in and have a third-trimester abortion on a whim, assuming the absurd example of a woman who, after carrying a pregnancy through eight months or so, simply decides such a thing because it seems a nice day for it, can actually be found. It's medically risky, which is why no responsible physician would perform the procedure unless a valid medical reason exists for it. Furthermore, the law clearly distinguishes between a case where a woman does have an abortion, and a case where a woman intending to carry her fetus to live birth has that fetus destroyed in a third-party attack so as to attatch appropriate liability upon the defendent in a criminal case.

So can we now have an end to this bullshit Red Herring (and a Black/White Fallacy to boot) you seem determined to drag out onto the stage here and stick to the relevant issues at hand —the crimes of Scott Petersen?

egyptfrk · Post by **egyptfrk** » 2004-11-15 02:54am

Patrick Degan wrote:
*snip*

Legal, and more importantly, medical restrictions already exist on the application of late-term abortion procedure. It's not as if any woman can simply go in and have a third-trimester abortion on a whim, assuming the absurd example of a woman who, after carrying a pregnancy through eight months or so, simply decides such a thing because it seems a nice day for it, can actually be found. It's medically risky, which is why no responsible physician would perform the procedure unless a valid medical reason exists for it. Furthermore, the law clearly distinguishes between a case where a woman does have an abortion, and a case where a woman intending to carry her fetus to live birth has that fetus destroyed in a third-party attack so as to attatch appropriate liability upon the defendent in a criminal case.

So can we now have an end to this bullshit Red Herring (and a Black/White Fallacy to boot) you seem determined to drag out onto the stage here and stick to the relevant issues at hand ?the crimes of Scott Petersen?

I believe you are referring to so-called partial birth abortions. What does that have to do with this?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-15 03:03am

Mrs. CmdrWilkens wrote:I believe you are referring to so-called partial birth abortions. What does that have to do with this?

Perhaps because at the late stage of this abortion, it would have to be a PBA. If the fetus was at 8 months, I would argue that it's definitely past the point of developing sentience and it should be considered an unborn baby rather than a non-sentient fetus.