Scott Peterson tha Stone Kold Killa [Archive]

Midnight Son

11-12-2004, 02:28 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=1&u=/ap/20041112/ap_on_re_us/laci_peterson

Scott Peterson (news - web sites) was convicted Friday of murdering his pregnant wife and dumping her body in San Francisco Bay in what prosecutors in the made-for-cable-TV case portrayed as a cold-blooded attempt to escape marriage and fatherhood for the bachelor life.

Peterson, 32, could get the death penalty. The former fertilizer salesman was convicted of one count of first-degree murder for killing his wife, Laci, and one count of second-degree murder in the death of the son she was carrying.

Peterson stared straight ahead as the verdict was read, then looked at each of the jurors as they were polled to confirm their decisions. The jurors looked serious and unsmiling, and none appeared to look back at Peterson. Outside court, cheers broke out among the hundreds of onlookers who gathered to hear word of the verdict.

Looks like no exile in Cancun for you.

tromik

11-12-2004, 02:35 PM

Wait, I though Scott Peterson sold kids his pubes and then ate his parents?

nutsak

11-12-2004, 03:08 PM

This case was huge in the media - why?

Rywill

11-12-2004, 03:09 PM

Out of curiosity: based on the evidence that was reported in the media, did people think (a) that he more likely than not did it; and/or (b) that if they were on a jury, they would vote guilty (that is, that the proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt")? What did people think about the split between first-degree murder (which generally means it was preplanned) and second-degree (which generally means it wasn't; like you just made a snap decision, usually in the heat of anger, to kill someone)?

Cold Blooded

11-12-2004, 03:13 PM

This case was huge in the media - why?

TV-watching wives around the age of the murdered woman, I reckon.

11-12-2004, 03:15 PM

This case was huge in the media - why?Because it broke during a traditionally slow point in the news cycle. That and what Cold Blooded said. My wife and all of her sisters have been following this closely.

From what I've heard and read, the jury reached the right conclusion.

Nathan

11-12-2004, 04:09 PM

I think the media picked up on it because of the other missing-person cases in this area: The Cary Stayner case happened in Yosemite, (but the media reported from Modesto), and the Chandra Levy case involving Rep. Gary Condit. I couldn't say why it became the big huge thing that it did, but I think that's how it started.

For what it's worth, Modesto really isn't that bad. It's not a great place, but it's more "suburban sprawl" than "sleepy backwater town". I mean, we have a Krispy Kreme and a Beverages & More!

Munky

11-12-2004, 04:47 PM

Out of curiosity:
Based on a sample size of all the women in my office (9), he is guilty because he "looks smarmy". To boil down all the talk I've overheard lo these many months.

Jason McCullough

11-12-2004, 05:55 PM

Lunch of Kong

11-12-2004, 06:01 PM

I thought the big thing about this case was that they were counting the death of the fetus as a murder.

A fetus therefore has different rights depending on whether it is wanted.

Union Carbide

11-12-2004, 07:12 PM

They were counting it as murder only because she was less than 1 month away from giving birth.

Which isn't to say I agree with that assessment, since I think it's a dangerous precedent to set.

Joel

11-12-2004, 07:58 PM

It's always made sense to me to set a line between 'can survive outside of the womb' and can't.

Duality

11-12-2004, 09:38 PM

This case was huge in the media - why?
Because the victim was a pretty, white girl?

Out of curiosity: based on the evidence that was reported in the media, did people think (a) that he more likely than not did it; and/or (b) that if they were on a jury, they would vote guilty (that is, that the proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt")? What did people think about the split between first-degree murder (which generally means it was preplanned) and second-degree (which generally means it wasn't; like you just made a snap decision, usually in the heat of anger, to kill someone)?
I had my doubts, initially. When he was found with an altered appearance and the 15k in his possession, there was an obvious red flag. However, when it came out that the bodies were found a couple of miles from where he said he was fishing, I became that much more suspicious. The idea that he was being framed by people who kidnapped Laci, murdered her, then planted the body where he said he was just didn't sound convincing at all to me. Then you consider other things like converting the new baby room into a store room, selling Laci's car, as well as their home before Laci's body was even found.

From a discussion I had with someone else about this, I turned up this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/29/48hours/main652356.shtml) about a mock trial set up to predict how the real jury might decide the case. The mock trial ended with a hung jury, but the article itself presents a lot of the prosecution's case.

Just too many things for me that the media presented working against him. All circumstantial evidence, but it still racks up.

If I'd been on the jury, I'd have to vote guilty. Of course, I've heard little to nothing of the defense's case. I know Geragos didn't really offer up any reasonable conclusions as to what happened, but I can't say I'd still give a guilty vote if I sat in on the defense's proceedings.

As for the 1st/2nd degree counts, I'm baffled as to how they can come to the conclusion of one and not the other. Surely if you intend to murder your pregnant wife, by extention you intend to murder your unborn child. I'm not even comfortable with the separate count for the unborn child, to begin with. I know this has the chance of dipping into what's considered a living thing and abortion and whatnot, but as a pro-choice supporter, I don't think it was the right call (also, to refer to the unborn baby as "Connor" to further demonize Scott Peterson in the media was inappropriate).

Mark Asher

11-12-2004, 10:25 PM

I think the defense's case can be summed up as arguing that there's no hard evidence to link him to the killing and that even if he's a liar and a jerk that doesn't mean he's a murderer.

I thought he had a slight chance to get off due to the lack of hard evidence.

I'd also like to know more about why two jurors were dismissed. It's a bit odd that the jury was deadlocked until those two were ousted and then only took one day to come to a decision.

Toddy

11-12-2004, 11:45 PM

From what I've read -- I didn't exactly follow the case, but read more than a few articles and, yes, I admit it, watched part of one or two of the Larry King episodes about it -- it didn't seem like the prosecution had anything other than a theory. All they could prove was that Peterson was banging another woman while his wife was pregnant. The rest was one big shot in the dark about Peterson's boat, his use of some bags of concrete (according to our estimates, only four of the six bags were used on the driveway, so the others had to have been used for blocks to weight down his wife's body!), and so on.

I believe that the guy is guilty, sure, in lack of no other credible suspects. But it really bothers me to see convictions like this on no evidence whatsoever. The prosecution didn't present a single piece of hard evidence linking Peterson to the murders, yet the guy's still likely to face the death penalty.

Also, what the hell was that with the jurors? How can a judge dimiss and replace two jurors after the case has gone to the jury? I'm amazed that that's even possible by law. And, of course, rumors are going around that the first juror to be dismissed -- the foreman! -- was dumped because he wasn't budging from a Not Guilty decision.

Ry, what's the history of juror stuff like this? Is this common in CA? It's hard to believe that Peterson won't win a new trial on appeal just because of what happened with the jury. It all looks pretty fishy. The judge did some other weird things as well. He refused to allow the defense to show an experiment apparently proving that Peterson couldn't have dumped his wife's body without capsizing his boat, yet he did allow the jurors during deliberation to get into the boat, where they of course tried to see if it seemed tippable...in a police garage.

Mark Asher

11-13-2004, 12:15 AM

One of the jurors was dismissed because she did research on the case outside of the courtroom. That seems like a sensible dismissal.

The other dismissal was of a juror who had both law and medical degrees. I can only guess that he was acting as an "expert witness" in the jury room during deliberations.

Rywill

11-13-2004, 12:21 AM

Ry, what's the history of juror stuff like this? Is this common in CA? It's hard to believe that Peterson won't win a new trial on appeal just because of what happened with the jury. It all looks pretty fishy. The judge did some other weird things as well. He refused to allow the defense to show an experiment apparently proving that Peterson couldn't have dumped his wife's body without capsizing his boat, yet he did allow the jurors during deliberation to get into the boat, where they of course tried to see if it seemed tippable...in a police garage.

I wouldn't say it's common, but it's not so unusual that I'd expect anything to come of it. Jurors get dismissed. They get sick, they have breakdowns because they can't deal with the deliberations, they engage in misconduct. A dismissal itself is no big deal. That's why they pick alternates in the first place. I don't know that much about why the two most recent ones were dismissed. I read that one of them was dismissed for doing an experiment (a definite no-no). I have no clue why the second one (the first foreman) was.

But I doubt you'd get a new trial out of it. It's pretty clear that a juror who has done an experiment has to be dismissed--she has evidence beyond what was presented at trial, and it'd be pretty hard for her to set that aside during deliberations. Plus she's already shown that she won't follow instructions. The other guy, who knows. Depends why he was dismissed. But I'd say it would be very hard to get a new trial, no matter what the reason is. IIRC juror dismissal is at the discretion of the trial judge, and that means it's nearly unreviewable.

It doesn't surprise me to find out that the foreman, who had both a law degree and medical degree, was the lone hold-out. But it does seem smelly--it makes it look like a case where a majority juror accused the hold-out of misconduct, hoping to get that person replaced so the case could be decided (and notice this happened on a Friday). But who knows.

The evidentiary decisions (letting the jurors get into the boat, and not letting the defense show their videotaped experiment) might be a better argument. I didn't follow the case closely enough to really know what's going on there. It definitely seems odd (and unfair) to let the jurors get in the boat and try to tip it over, but not allow the defense to present evidence that the boat would tip if it were in the water. But again, I don't know that much about what happened. Maybe there was some good reason. It sure sounds bad, though.

In any case, Peterson is pretty well sunk. California is not known for its generous appellate bench. If you lose at trial, you're usually pretty well hosed unless there's an excellent appealable issue from the trial. I haven't heard about one in this case, so Peterson's probably out of luck.

I thought the case was really interesting--a very compelling circumstantial case, and no credible alternative explanation from the defense, but no direct evidence at all. I was really interested to see how the jury would view it and how the public would view it.

Rywill

11-13-2004, 12:30 AM

Oh, I do remember one issue that jumped out at me for appeal: the jury at one point indicated they were deadlocked, and the judge told them to try harder to get to a verdict. That kind of instruction (called a "dynamite instruction" or "Allen instruction") can get judges into trouble, because there's a fine line between what you can and can't say. An experienced judge who's paying attention isn't likely to get tripped up, but you never know. I never saw an exact quote of the instruction given in this case.

Duality

11-13-2004, 10:25 AM

I think I can understand that. A judge is supposed to be impartial through the proceedings, so telling the jury to "try harder" is kind of like putting more undue pressure on them to come up with the "right" verdict.

Not like they don't have enough pressure, being the twelve to decide on the fate of a man's life ...

Bullhajj

11-13-2004, 11:03 AM

I'm surprised it was a 2nd degree murder charge. I wonder how they got to a crime of passion without finding a lick of hard evidence? You would think the lack of evidence showed that it was a planned murder? Odd.

Robert Sharp

11-13-2004, 12:26 PM

It's always made sense to me to set a line between 'can survive outside of the womb' and can't.

me too, but I still have a problem with it because then you have to ask about babies on incubators and such. Is it JUST the womb or independent survival altogether? In society today, many babies can survive outside the womb that never would have even 50 years ago. So, I no longer know where to draw the line.

Rywill

11-13-2004, 02:12 PM

Re: second-degree on the baby, it may be that the jury figured it this way: he wanted to kill his wife and planned to kill his wife. He knew the baby would die as part of that, but didn't particularly care one way or the other whether the baby died; that was just a side-effect of killing his wife. The wife was the one he wanted and intended to kill.

Realistically, that makes no sense, though. In the first place, it seems like he did kill the baby intentionally and premeditatively. I'm not sure that it matters what the motive is. It's kind of a sketchy question, whether the death has to be the objective of your actions or just something you know for sure will happen. I've never done a murder case as a defense lawyer and it's been so long since I looked at one as a judicial clerk that I don't remember exactly how the law breaks down.

But I don't see any way you get to second-degree murder, which is generally an intentional killing that isn't preplanned. If the wife's murder was preplanned, so was the baby's. If you feel that the baby's killing isn't "intentional" because it wasn't the object of the crime, I would think that would be manslaughter (an unintended or accidental unlawful killing), not second-degree murder. So I really don't get it. It may have just been a compromise verdict (i.e., some jurors want murder 1, some want manslaughter or acquittal, so they just agree to "meet in the middle," which is totally illegal but happens all the time).

Toddy

11-13-2004, 03:02 PM

Thanks for all the info, Ry. I suppose life gets in the way during the deliberation phase of a trial, but it just seems really bizarre for it to happen twice like this. I'd have thought that having to replace jurors so late would be almost immediate grounds for an appeal, or even a mistrial. Allowing dismissals like this sure opens the door for judicial misconduct. Jury deadlocked? Well, get rid of a couple of jurors and see if they new guys can reach a verdict! Also, like Ry said, the second-degree murder on the unborn baby is unexplainable in light of the first-degree murder on the mother. I'm wondering if that's going to be appeal grounds as well. I don't know what sort of reasoning could have led to those judgements.

And Mark, I find the dismissal timing really, really suspicious. The jurors tell the judge they may be deadlocked and then, presto!, misconduct charges remove two holdouts within 24 hours and the remaining jurors plus the two additions reach a guilty verdict in six hours. Uh-huh. Like Ry said, it sure appears like maybe some of the jurors torpedoed the not-guilty holdouts and got more agreeable replacements.

I think there'd be a lot of outrage about this if not for the fact that every woman in North America wants to personally plunge the needle into Peterson. My wife was pretty much cheering along with the women shown outside the courthouse on TV.

Duality

11-13-2004, 04:28 PM

Thanks for all the info, Ry. I suppose life gets in the way during the deliberation phase of a trial, but it just seems really bizarre for it to happen twice like this. I'd have thought that having to replace jurors so late would be almost immediate grounds for an appeal, or even a mistrial. Allowing dismissals like this sure opens the door for judicial misconduct.
It really does seem like that, doesn't it? From what I've read, though, this is a standard procedure and a juror can be dismissed even during deliberation. I'm not sure of the finer details of the process, however. I know they keep a pool of alternate jurors even during deliberation, but I don't know if they keep those alternates sequestered with the rest of the twelve or not. I would hope so, otherwise there's that incredibly risk of being tainted by media influence.

And Mark, I find the dismissal timing really, really suspicious. The jurors tell the judge they may be deadlocked and then, presto!, misconduct charges remove two holdouts within 24 hours...
Two right away? Are you sure about that? I only know of one that was dismissed on Tuesday for, apparently, conducting her own research on the case outside of the court proceedings.

There was another juror dismissed back in June who, when interviewed, stated that he wasn't convinced of the prosecution's case. If that's what you're referring to, its not really fair to say that he was a holdout because the trial was far from concluded.

Rywill

11-13-2004, 05:12 PM

There were two jurors dismissed on two consecutive days--a woman who was dismissed for doing her own experiments, and I don't know which way she was voting. The second was the foreman, a guy with a law degree and medical degree. He was pretty clearly a hold-out, because the jury convicted just hours after his dismissal. There was also at least one (I think there were two) dismissed during the trial.

As for the finer details of the process, it generally goes like this: someone on the jury hands a note to the baliff saying either (1) "I need to get off this jury" for whatever reason (sick, can't stand the pressure, mother died, etc.); or (2) "Juror so-and-so is doing something wrong" (won't deliberate, brought in outside evidence, talked to outsiders, etc.). What happens next is left pretty much completely up to the judge. The judge almost always consults with the lawyers for the case, who might simply agree on what needs to be done (nothing, juror dismissed, extra instructions given to jury, etc.). If the facts need to be fleshed out (like a juror accusing another juror of misconduct), the judge will usually hold a hearing, with both attorneys present, during which some or all of the jurors will be questioned about what happened, either individually, as a group, or both. After that, either the lawyers and the judge agree what needs to be done, or the lawyers both argue for what they want and the judge makes the final decision.

I believe that when a jury is sequestered, the alternates are also sequestered, although I've never had a sequestered jury myself. It only makes sense, though. Generally, those sorts of decisions are left totally in the hands of the trial judge. Some judges allow alternates to sit in on deliberations (but not participate), but most judges keep the alternates out of deliberations until/unless they're put on the jury.

Mike O'Malley

11-13-2004, 06:29 PM

Being an alternate has to suck- you're sequestered and you don't even have the deliberations to break up the monotony.

XtienMurawski

11-13-2004, 07:48 PM

I was an alternate on a murder trial. It was a very weird, is-you-is-or-is-you-ain't kind of feeling. Being in limbo. You have to pay just as much attention as any of the other, "real" jurors, but you never really know if you're gonna get called up to the big leagues.

I got moved up fairly early in the process when one of the jurors got in a car accident on the way to court one morning. It was almost surreal in how unceremonious it was. It was really just a matter of changing seats, and no more weight was given to it than that by the court. It was simply, "Alternate 1 is now sitting in Seat 6. Let us continue." Good thing I'd been paying attention all along.

As for the Second Degree thing...there are so many things that could have transpired for them to get to 2nd degree on the baby. First of all, there is a huge amount of ignorance/misunderstanding in that room w/r/t legal definitions. The shifting meanings of "intent" and "malice aforethought" etc., etc., are just incredibly difficult for lay people to wrap their heads around. They can ask the judge to clarify things, and the jury instructions are meticulous, but there are so many semantic traps for them to fall into. The average juror just doesn't have the stomach--or the mental endurance--for the long haul that is deliberations, and over the course of the ordeal they drop out mentally. They don't like to think past a certain point. They're not used to it. I mean, for Christ's sake, the guy sitting next to me kept nodding off during the trial, which was rivetting; it was no wonder that once we got to deliberations he was all over the map and finally voted on a verdict--in part--because he wanted to get to his grandson's little league game that afternoon.

The Peterson jury had something of an advantage, I think, in that they had a guy who [ostensibly] understood the law to explain such questions to them. But I say this not knowing his personality. He could have been a real jerk with an agenda, and therefore not much help at all.

The other thing that might have happened--and this is sort of a function of my first point--is that they did view 2nd degree as a concession verdict. Maybe they couldn't completely reconcile the "fetus issues" in the room, but they couldn't just ignore the charge, so they went down to a lesser charge to placate some members. A certain amount of bartering does go on.

And people get worn down. How many days did they deliberate? I think my jury deliberated for one and a half days...maybe two, and it was absolutely exhausting. Terrifying and exhilarating and enraging and exhausting. The hardest thing I've ever had to do.

And one of the things I'm most proud of having done as a citizen, as corny as that sounds.

"Do you have an alternate?"

-Amanpour

Rywill

11-13-2004, 11:47 PM

I mean, for Christ's sake, the guy sitting next to me kept nodding off during the trial, which was rivetting; it was no wonder that once we got to deliberations he was all over the map and finally voted on a verdict--in part--because he wanted to get to his grandson's little league game that afternoon.

I know this kind of stuff happens all the time, but I swear to God anecdotes like that make people like me want to just blow my brains out. You see someone like that, and it's like, "Why even bother putting on my case? Maybe we should just have a giant wheel like in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome."

Great story, though. I wish more people took jury duty that way--as a solemn civic duty, rather than a massive inconvenience.

Nick Walter

11-14-2004, 12:01 AM

Great story, though. I wish more people took jury duty that way--as a solemn civic duty, rather than a massive inconvenience.

It is a massive inconvenience though. Everyone I know who has done it has really had to fight with their employers over it. Even though the laws in my state make it flatly illegal to penalize an employee in any way for jury duty. I've been summoned for jury duty twice, and both times my employer told me I couldn't go. They got their way too, they wrote letters to the court and got me excused. But of course it was my problem to make sure the letters were sent and to find the right person to send them to and my employers made it pretty clear that if I didn't get it taken care of I'd be in trouble for not being a good employee. No outright firing or suspension or anything but people who aren't team players don't get good raises . . .

I wish they would change the laws to make it harder for people to get out of jury duty for anything but medical/family emergencies.. That way employers wouldn't lean so hard on people to get themselves excused.

XtienMurawski

11-14-2004, 01:17 AM

It's gotten much tougher in California--at least in Los Angeles--to get yourself excused, what with the institution of the one day/one trial/on call system. Since they switched to that, getting excused from jury duty is very tough. The upside is that serving is much more convenient. You call the night before you're service starts and are told whether you even need to show up that day. Used to be you had to show up for all ten days and sit in a cattle box with a hundred other jurors, whether they needed you or not.

If you are required to show up, once you get called for a trial, if you're released--highly likely--that's it. You're done. The need for jurors here is huge; I'm just happy they're trying to adapt to the needs of this ridiculously populated county.

Incidentally, I've never had an employer give me guff, overtly or covertly, for jury duty. I've had plenty of co-workers share their strategies for getting out of it though. When I said I was looking forward to it, they all moved away as if I'd shouted, "Outcast! Unclean!"

I just believe so strongly in serving. Please, to those of you reading this...next time a summons comes...take it seriously. Do whatever you can to serve. It makes a difference.

"In the name of God! Do your duty!"

-Amanpour

wildpokerman

11-14-2004, 05:26 AM

Supertanker

11-14-2004, 09:41 AM

With the one day, one trial jury system in California, the courts are looking at the excuses very hard. They have also started enforcing the notices, and will issue arrest warrants after you ignore a couple. Judges will sometimes call your employer if you say you don't get time off for jury duty.

My favorite instance was actually before the new system. I was biding my time in the jury pool, and in one courtroom a young lawyer at a medium-size firm (75-100 lawyers) told the judge she only was allowed a week. Most lawyers know this is something you never do. The judge blew his top and demanded the name of her managing partner. He got the clerk's phone, called the managing partner, and excoriated the guy for several minutes about how that firm makes lots of money from the system and should be first in line to volunteer their employees for service. When he finally hung up, he turned to the lawyer and said, "You now have all the time we need."

I always have wondered if that was something she made up to try and get out of it, only to see it horribly backfire.

Mark Asher

11-14-2004, 10:38 AM

I served on a jury for a medical malpractice case. It lasted nearly two weeks. It was not uncommon for jury members to nod off during dry, medical testimony, much of which was reading medical reports to get them into the record. It was hard not to get sleepy. You just sit. You can't even talk.

At one point we saw a video presentation and the judge kept falling asleep, ha ha.

At the end of the trial the judge threw out most of the case and said we couldn't even deliberate on whether there was actual malpractice during the surgery or post-surgical care. All we were allowed to deliberate on was whether the doctor properly informed the patient of the risks.

Union Carbide

11-14-2004, 01:31 PM

For what it's worth, EA doesn't hassle you at all for jury duty. In fact, getting a jury duty summons is basically seen as "woohoo a day off!"

Jason McCullough

11-14-2004, 02:11 PM

Yeah, now that I'm full time at MS I'm looking forward to jury duty. I get to play god! They wouldn't cover it back when I was contracting. :(

The political implications of juries staffed almost entirely by the unemployed, retired, and the upper middle class I'll leave to you......

Duality

11-14-2004, 04:02 PM

Ryan, how much do you know about costs of capital punishment vs life sentence without parole in CA? I'm having a discussion on another forum that's reduced itself to the cost of life imprisonment vs the cost of a death sentence.

I realize you're a lawyer and not an accountant, but do you know if these numbers (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/dp-cost.html) are realistic?

Rywill

11-14-2004, 09:14 PM

I really don't know anything about it, sorry. I took a look at the website you linked, but I have no idea whether those numbers are realistic or not. I can tell you that my firm would charge someone way, way more than $385,000 (the amount quoted for "defense attorney") for a death penalty trial and appeal--we were approached about doing a death penalty murder earlier this year, and although I won't say exactly what we asked for as a retainer, it was well more than twice that. But we're fairly expensive, and I assume that figure is an average that includes cases worked by the Public Defender's office, which would obviously be significantly cheaper. The only other thing I can say is that the site is right about the procedural aspects--death penalty cases do involve two-stage trials, and they do get an automatic California Supreme Court appeal.

I've never really thought about which is more expensive, but I guess it doesn't totally surprise me that death penalty cases are more expensive even when you figure in incarceration costs--especially in California, which has extremely long death row waits (I believe usually around 20 years before a death row inmate is actually put to death). That tends to even out any "savings" you might assume there would be in a death penalty case--the DP guys spend almost as much time in jail as someone who is put in for life.

I guess I've never thought about it because I wouldn't think it would matter. If you think the death penalty is a justified punishment, I would think you'd be willing to impose it even if it's more costly. If you don't (and I don't), I hardly think "It's too expensive" would be your strongest argument.

But anyway, the short answer is "I don't know."

Duality

11-14-2004, 11:20 PM

Still good insight.

I thank you. Even if you didn't lock a debate for me. Jerk.

dannimal

11-17-2004, 02:33 PM

Duality, this is anecdotal, but I was just in Los Angeles visiting friends(I was having lunch with a friend when the verdict was announced to a cheering crowd).

Her best friend was shot and killed during a robbery (while sitting in her car, after having given the robber everything). My friend attended almost all of the trial, and had continuous discussions with the prosecuting attorney through the case. He was pretty clear in explaining that it costs California more to prosecute a capital punishment case to the end then it does to keep someone incarcerated for life.

She wasn't (nor was the family) advocating the death penalty (she felt that repeatedly putting the family through event via appeals/hearings wasn't worth the end result. None of it brings the victim back), so I don't think the prosecutor had any reason to lie to her/them.

Far from hard facts, but it's worth mentioning.

Edit: fixed spelling error

Rywill

12-13-2004, 05:30 PM

As I'm sure everyone knows, the jury voted for death. If you believe the death penalty is ever justified, Scott Peterson probably deserved it as much as anyone can. Even so, though, this:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041213/041213_peterson_reaction_hmed_3p.standard.jpg

...and similar images never fail to give me goosebumps. The death penalty is, or should be, a solemn, awful duty. I'd like to think we got rid of gloating over another person's insitutionalized death when we got rid of stuff like gladiatorial arenas. Look at that kid cheering in the blue shirt. Ugh.

http://www.theblackmarket.com/ProfilesInBlack/lynching.GIF

MattKeil

12-13-2004, 06:52 PM

On a side note, a reality show featuring gladiatorial combat to the death between condemned men would pull in the highest ratings in history.

Betcha.

Midnight Son

12-13-2004, 07:13 PM

I don't equate lynching with the death penalty. :roll:

Rywill

12-13-2004, 07:45 PM

I'm not either. I'm equating people's glee at someone's execution with their glee at a lynching. If the point you're trying to make is that it's okay to be ecstatic about an execution because it's carried out by force of law, I don't agree with you, for the reasons I stated above.

Midnight Son

12-13-2004, 07:51 PM

Oh hell no, there should be no glee. I see what you're saying. Although I'm for the death penalty for deserving recipients.... it's no occasion for joy or celebration.

MattKeil

12-14-2004, 12:02 AM

I just realized upon seeing another picture of those bystanders that the girl in the dark glasses was one of my classmates in high school. I still can't figure out if they're happy or unhappy about the verdict just from the photo. The text indicates they're celebrating, of course.

Drastic

12-14-2004, 12:55 AM

It's the equivalent of cheering a touchdown. The trial's been a spectator sport, that's all--that's why it's been plastered all over the news, and received multipage forum threads on every forum with a general interest section.

Future years will show further refinements of this type of thing. I predict national leagues of various types in fifty years. Prosecution provided by the LA Sharks! Defense by the Washington Shysters! And so forth.

Lunch of Kong

12-14-2004, 01:03 AM

I wanted to get accepted for jury duty, I really did.

But on my juror selection questionnaire, I got to the part where it asked me: "Are you of sound mind and good moral character?"

"Well now, " I thought to myself, "am I qualified to sit in judgement of my own moral character? How would I know if I wasn't of sound mind? I'm sure Hitler thought he was of sound mind and good moral character until the day he died."

"If society could accept self-judgement as an evaluation of truth, we wouldn't need jurors now, would we?"

So I checked the box that read "Unknown".

I got an email from the court an hour later: "mR. wONG, tHANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. yOUR SERVICES ARE NOT REQUIRED." or something like that.

What can I say? If they don't want objective jurors, the loss is theirs.

Sparky

12-14-2004, 01:28 AM

I don't equate lynching with the death penalty. :roll:
A book I read recently -
The Hangman's Knot: Lynching, Legal Execution, and America's Struggle with the Death Penalty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081334042X/qid=1103012602/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/104-5912638-3974339), makes an argument that there is a relationship between the two, and it's pretty interesting (note: the author is very anti-death penalty).

Bitterman

12-14-2004, 10:34 AM

There is also a second degree murder for reckless disregard that's sort of like manslaughter++. Like if you set off a bomb in an empty building without checking that the janitor is around. It's not a "crime of passion", but it's more than manslaughter. It's an iffy call for an unborn baby, but perhaps better than first degree.

Also, I recently read an article about how the popularity of CSI and other shows has led to many juries wanting DNA evidence or the like, even for cases like burglary. Police and prosecutors are soewhat annoyed, because it's almost impossible to get/pay for DNA testing in a burglary, mugging, etc. I noticed that some people in this thread were complaining about the lack of "hard" evidence, but really, the standard is reasonable doubt. If there is a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence, enough to remove reasonable doubt, that's certainly good enough for me.