Penalty for Scott Peterson Trail

Agent Fisher · Post by **Agent Fisher** » 2004-12-13 04:52pm

Death.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-12-13 04:55pm

Wow. I really thought it was going to be life in prison. Guess he really did come off as the unlikable son of a bitch that I thought he was to the jury.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 05:00pm

We have it on in the CQ office right now. I'm not surprised, although Life would not have surprised me either.

"20 years" would have been a "surprise".

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-12-13 05:14pm

Death and the "quick method" which will be preformed sometime around ten to fifteen years from now

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-12-13 05:25pm

Personally, I thought he'd get off on a mistrial.

I mean, after all, there were made-for-television movies coming out that implied his guilt even before the trial was over.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-13 05:30pm

I had a feeling he'd draw the death penalty. I wasn't sure about it because I figured at least one or two jurors would hold out and prevent a unanimous vote, but they all swung dead against him.

Now the talking heads are speculating on whether or not the judge will set aside the penalty verdict for the lesser sentence of life, but I don't see that happening in this case.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-13 05:46pm

California's penal system is excrutiatingly slow with capital punishment. There are currently over 600 people on death row, and only 10 executions have taken place in the last 20 years.

He'll appeal the shit out of this, without a doubt.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 05:50pm

So... what'll happen first:

He'll actually be executed (doubtful)
He'll die of old age
He'll get some sort of reduction on appeal
He'll get cornholed to the point where he wishes he'd been executed

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-12-13 06:22pm

Coyote wrote:So... what'll happen first:

He'll actually be executed (doubtful)
He'll die of old age
He'll get some sort of reduction on appeal
He'll get cornholed to the point where he wishes he'd been executed

Option 1: Excellent.
Option 2: Terrible, except if in conjunction with option 4.
Option 3: Terrible.
Option 4: Great, especially with option 2.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-12-13 07:15pm

As I ask again, did the Prosecution ever change from providing circumstantial evidence and proving he was a bad person?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-13 07:33pm

Robert Walper wrote:
Coyote wrote:So... what'll happen first:

He'll actually be executed (doubtful)
He'll die of old age
He'll get some sort of reduction on appeal
He'll get cornholed to the point where he wishes he'd been executed
Option 1: Excellent.
Option 2: Terrible, except if in conjunction with option 4.
Option 3: Terrible.
Option 4: Great, especially with option 2.

Can you explain why you want a man who has been convicted based on character assassination attempts and circumstantial evidence put to death?

Admiral Bravo · Post by **Admiral Bravo** » 2004-12-13 09:02pm

Wow that was really harsh, I was sure he would get life in prision, but given California's record with the death penalty, he'll most likely try to appeal like there's no tomorrow.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-12-13 09:04pm

Actually, we've executed 11 people since they brought back the death penalty in 1978. The hassle is that a DP gets you an automatic appeal.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-13 09:11pm

I was left with the distinct impression that if it wasn't Scott Peterson, who could it be? Kinda like with OJ Simpson. If it wasn't him, then you're left with... satanic cults? Aliens? Elvis?

There was just too much coincidence, too much wierdness, and his behavior certainly was one of duplicity... beyond what "a scared guy" would do, IMO.

The jury said it was the murder that got him into the mess, it was his behavior about the murder afterwards that confirmed the impression of guilt. But again, this ia sll my opinion, not having been on th ejury and only marginally following the case as articles popped up.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-12-13 09:31pm

Durandal wrote: Can you explain why you want a man who has been convicted based on character assassination attempts and circumstantial evidence put to death?

Ok, my bad. I'm not really following the case or anything. The general consensus I'm hearing is he's guilty, but I'm not in any position to make that determination myself. If he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and shows no remorse, I would certainly support capital punishment.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2004-12-13 09:34pm

Coyote more or less summed it up: it was the magnitude of psychological evidence, in commbination of the heap of bullshit that was his defense, that turned the jury towards conviction. The greater presence of the human element in the case - that a defenseless child was also killed - tipped the jury towards voting for death, since it would have probably been more likely that, were it just his wife that'd been killed, or some other person who might have been able to defend themselves to an extent, he would have received a life sentence, later appealed.

And while it might have been slow up until now, with Arnie at the helm, California's death rows might get a nice kick-start. What better way to show your determination to "deter" crime than to get the system to pick up the pace and start putting the more heinous (and infamous/publicized, as in this case) scum at the head of the line?

Of course, give him a grace period of a few years so that the courts can do a couple more checks to see if they missed anything that might warrent a new trial and possible overturning of his sentence. The second that period's over, however, I better have the satisfaction of knowing the fucker's gonna be burning in an hour's time.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-13 09:41pm

"Missed anything"? You mean like "missing" a total lack of any hard, physical evidence linking him to the crime?

EDIT: An interesting quote.

NYTimes.com wrote:There was no murder weapon and no witness. But in the end, the jurors who decided Scott Peterson's fate said his seeming lack of sorrow and the circumstantial evidence were enough to convict and send him to death row.

Hear that everyone? The fact that you don't give an Oscar-worthy performance in the courtroom is proof of guilt! Randomly selected morons off the street don't need to be bothered with such trivialities as murder weapons, witnesses or physical evidence.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-13 10:04pm

Durandal wrote:"Missed anything"? You mean like "missing" a total lack of any hard, physical evidence linking him to the crime?

EDIT: An interesting quote.

There was no murder weapon and no witness. But in the end, the jurors who decided Scott Peterson's fate said his seeming lack of sorrow and the circumstantial evidence were enough to convict and send him to death row.

Hear that everyone? The fact that you don't give an Oscar-worthy performance in the courtroom is proof of guilt! Randomly selected morons off the street don't need to be bothered with such trivialities as murder weapons, witnesses or physical evidence.

Of course, the fact that Peterson's defence attorney couldn't provide anything like a credible alibi for his client or a logically-structured reasonable doubt for the "randomly selected morons" couldn't possibly have had anything to do with his conviction...

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-13 10:09pm

I think he probably did it. Probably. But they're going to fucking kill him, they need better than that!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-13 10:10pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Durandal wrote:"Missed anything"? You mean like "missing" a total lack of any hard, physical evidence linking him to the crime?

EDIT: An interesting quote.

There was no murder weapon and no witness. But in the end, the jurors who decided Scott Peterson's fate said his seeming lack of sorrow and the circumstantial evidence were enough to convict and send him to death row.

Hear that everyone? The fact that you don't give an Oscar-worthy performance in the courtroom is proof of guilt! Randomly selected morons off the street don't need to be bothered with such trivialities as murder weapons, witnesses or physical evidence.
Of course, the fact that Peterson's defence attorney couldn't provide anything like a credible alibi for his client or a logically-structured reasonable doubt for the "randomly selected morons" couldn't possibly have had anything to do with his conviction...

Are you saying that you would find a man guilty in the absence of hard evidence, much less sentence to death? Were Peterson's actions less than honest? Sure, but he was also a guy who cheated on his wife. That doesn't prove anything. We have a justice system that relies on objective facts for a reason.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-13 10:12pm

Howedar wrote:I think he probably did it. Probably. But they're going to fucking kill him, they need better than that!

I tend to agree. And if I was in that courtroom, I might have voted guilty as well. But there's no way in Hell I'd recommend the death penalty. There's no hard evidence at all, and I couldn't sentence a man to death with that kind of uncertainty.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-13 10:30pm

Durandal wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Of course, the fact that Peterson's defence attorney couldn't provide anything like a credible alibi for his client or a logically-structured reasonable doubt for the "randomly selected morons" couldn't possibly have had anything to do with his conviction...
Are you saying that you would find a man guilty in the absence of hard evidence, much less sentence to death? Were Peterson's actions less than honest? Sure, but he was also a guy who cheated on his wife. That doesn't prove anything. We have a justice system that relies on objective facts for a reason.

He had a record of lying about his marital status, was lying about his location to his mistress during the time the search for his missing wife was in progress, sold off his missing wife's car, put the house —the crime scene— up on the market at the earliest possible date, put forth an alibi about fishing for sturgeon which was exploded in the courtroom, had the bad luck for the two bodies to float up in the bay where he placed himself for his alibi, and to top it off was arrested attempting to flee the country in a disguise, $10000 in cash, and fake identification —all actions indicating a guilty mind. DNA evidence of his missing wife along with concrete dust was found in his boat, and the concrete used purportedly to fix his driveway didn't match up with the amount bought from the hardware store. Finally, no logically consistent theory of the crime can be constructed which doesn't place Scott Peterson at the centre of events. It didn't help that Geragos tried floating lame intruder theories, the Satanic Cult Kidnappers theory, and the Insane Neighbour theory —none of which was supported by anything uncovered in the investigation.

Yes, our justice system relies on objective evidence. Hate to break it to you, but it also relies on circumstantial evidence as well, and this case was never about Scott Peterson fucking around on his pregnant wife. Peterson had no legitimate or even remotely credible alibi and he was the only person in line to benefit from the crime. No evidence pointing to any other suspect —circumstantial or otherwise— exists. As a matter of law, a person can be legitimatly convicted on circumstantial evidence even for the crime of murder when the defendant's guilt is demonstrated by process of logical elimination.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-13 10:33pm

Durandal wrote:
Howedar wrote:I think he probably did it. Probably. But they're going to fucking kill him, they need better than that!
I tend to agree. And if I was in that courtroom, I might have voted guilty as well. But there's no way in Hell I'd recommend the death penalty. There's no hard evidence at all, and I couldn't sentence a man to death with that kind of uncertainty.

Not having followed the case to know all the in's and out's of the various bits of evidence, I don't know if I can really say that I don't have any doubts.

Though, doesn't he automatically get various appeals? Let alone the chance for lawyers to pick apart the case and appeal normally?

On the up side, he gets his own cell on death row for the next twenty or so years. Better than bunking with bubba.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-13 10:42pm

I was glad they found him 'guilty' though.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-14 04:16am

Even if he was guilty, the trial is still an example of what happens when the media latches on to any particular case. I don't think anyone can say that Peterson got anything remotely approaching a fair trial. Further, I'm not sure why it's legal to give someone the death penalty without DNA or similar evidence, but it really shouldn't be.