I think you are correct. But the kicker is that IMHO anyone who is against the death penalty also requires a higher standard of proof of guilt. When the prosecution (its their call) decides to pursue the death penalty, they manage to be able to eliminate jurors that might require them to have a better case. IMHO those that like the death penalty are more heavily invested in securing retribution. Hence OJ in 93 and Peterson in 04.
I’d like to be the umpteenth person to say that I am against the Death Penalty in general, and the fact that the case was decided by the jurors (apparently) based on circumstantial evidence and emotional manipulation makes the outcome even more heinous. IMHO.
I was against him getting the death penalty all along. I guess this means that my position on the death penalty has softened a bit. I am not really against the death penalty—when it’s clear-cut that someone is guilty (like eyewitnesses to the crime, compelling DNA evidence, etc.) then it doesn’t seem inappropriate. But the Scott Peterson case had nothing like that. Sure, he looks totally guilty, he acted totally guilty, and I truly believe that he is guilty. The jury also believed so, and they know far more about the details of the case than I do. But there’s that teensy-weensy chance that maybe we’re all wrong (I know, I know, we aren’t) and with the death penalty, there’s no “do-over.”
Maybe he did do it, but what evidence made it 1st degree? All of the methods you just mentioned could also be used in second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.
There was no evidence of him planning it ahead of time. Just innuendo.
California has executed 10 people since the death penalty was reinstated. Yesterday on NPR they said that there were 630 people were on California’s death row. And those go first. The reporter said that even if all his appeals were denied it could be 27 years before he is executed.
It’s odd that the jury is allowed to consider “victim impact” testimony, but is not supposed to consider the impact the execution would have on the defendant’s family.
Actually, Razorsharp I think you were being tongue-in-cheek when you said you had “missed the evidence,” but I believe the fact is, you did miss the evidence.
The trial was six months long. There was a lot of evidence presented to support the ultimate verdict, including premeditation. I followed the case closely (just interested), and thought one of the strongest arguments for premeditation was the lack of physical evidence; i.e., if you don’t plan it – a la Mark Hacking – there’s apt to be a lot more loose ends.
I thought the fact that he rented cars on different occasions (immediately following her dissappearance) and used those cars to drive to the bay where he said he had been fishing and where authorities were searching (just to observe their search unnoticed) was a big strike against him. I thought the fact that he laughed when listening to a message from his mother suggesting he travel to Washington because someone there may have seen Laci worked against him as well.
There were a thousand of those circumstantial pieces of evidence. Those two were just on my mind. There were way too many others that were too convincing to make me think anything other than he’s guilty.
I respect your stance that the evidence doesn’t work for you, but I just don’t think it’s fair to discount the piles of evidence that did work for a lot of other people, including the jury.
there are quite a few people who were on death row who are glad it takes so long for the sentence to go through. dna evidence saved a few lives after they had been on death row.
i was a bit surprized they went with death. i can nearly understand how one can give a serial killer the dp. i am surprized on a no priar, no trouble, first offence defendant.
to tell the truth i can’t figure how the death penalty became law in so many states. i was called for jury duty and ended up in a pool of 80 jurors. as soon as i saw how many of us there were i knew it would be a murder case. penn is a dp commonwealth so i figured “oh boy, here we go.” i knew if it was dp i would be out.
sure enough it was a dp case. the defendant could not have been more than 25, i’m thinking he was 22. when the question was asked if we could consider recommending the death penalty, 68 of us were out on that question. that left 12 people for the lawyers to choose from. one of the jury service workers told us it takes more than a week to seat a jury for dp. 1,000 people got summoned to jury duty that day. they would be lucky to seat 1 juror out of 1,000.
if so many people get knocked out of the jury pool, how did they get the votes to have the penalty in the state??!!
[QUOTE=Razorsharp]
[ul][li]Yes[]mmm… okay[]Now, hold it right there. I missed the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed them with premeditation. [/ul] Maybe he did do it, but what evidence made it 1st degree? All of the methods you just mentioned could also be used in second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. There was no evidence of him planning it ahead of time. Just innuendo.[/li][/QUOTE]
In my opinion one of the key pieces of evidence for premeditation is the fact that Peterson bought the boat he used to carry her body out into the bay just before he killed her, and didn’t tell anyone about it.
But as Sat on Cookie said, it wasn’t this one piece of evidence or that one that led to the conviction. It was the many, many small pieces of evidence that could only add up to one conclusion, unless one believes the most fanciful pileup of coincidences.
Ed
It’s likely that many who say they oppose the death penalty are merely saying that to weasel their way out of jury duty.
I cannot speak to California, but speaking as a Texas attorney with some small experience on the subject, I would say that Texas’ implementation of the death penalty is not especially swift, but it is wholly superficial. That is, the courts and the prosecutors and the Board of Pardons and Paroles proceeed very slowly, but inexorably and without noticeable concern for the legal rights of the defendant or the slightest interest in the defendant’s substantial claim of actual innocence, towards execution. The defendant’s attorneys, who are paid no more than nominal attention during this process, have little or no impact on the time it takes to carry out an death sentence.
Probably because they don’t realize the impact. It’s pretty easy to vote for something to be law, if it’s just hypothetical. But then to be asked to be directly responsible…a lot of people just don’t realize what exactly they’re voting for.
Wow. So the fact that there is no evidence you have committed a crime is evidnce you are guilty? And I thought proving a negative was difficult. Just try and mount a defense against that prosecution!
Doggone it, CynicalGabe, you beat me to the punch, and it was a knockout punch at that.
Sorry; I should have been more clear. For me, there was more than enough evidence to prove he was guilty. Plenty. Working backwards, then, the lack of physical evidence in their home or his car strengthened the case, for me, that it was a premeditated murder versus a murder in the heat of passion. The lack of physical evidence *did not * contribute to whether or not I thought he was guilty in the first place.
Exactly what methods of murder are indicitive of first degree and which ones are not? You can plan to shoot someone methodically or do it in a fit of rage, same for knifing, or strangulation, etc. Poisoning would certainly require premeditation but I don’t know of any method that precludes premeditation.
I don’t either, which is exactly my point. Peterson could have killed his wife in a fit of rage, rather than a premeditated act. There was not enough evidence presented for the jury to find, beyond any reasonable doubt, for a 1st degree, premeditated act of murder.
Therefore, I predict, the judge will overturn the jury’s recommendation when sentencing Peterson.
Anybody disagree?
Well, of course, there’s me. I disagree.
What I don’t get is that you keep saying there was no evidence, etc., and not addressing the fact that it was a six-month long trial. No matter how much coverage you may have seen at night, you weren’t sitting in the jury room for six months listening to testimony, right? (I know, neither was I).
As has already been pointed out, some of us feel there was plenty of evidence. From what I saw and heard, Peterson did not kill his wife in a fit of rage but in a cold, premeditated manner. Period. YMMV (and obviously does).
Yes. What you want the judge to do is set aside the sentence on the grounds that it was not a 1st degree murder. This amounts to setting aside the verdict, not the sentence. But he did not set aside the verdict, he did not dispute the 1st degree conviction, therefore your grounds for setting aside the sentence doesn’t hold water.
If it was not premeditated- then why would a man who was not a fisherman suddenly acquire the boat and take up fishing at Christmas? If that isn’t reasonable, then the boat was obtained in advance to dispose of the body and that is evidence of premeditation.
No fan I of the death penalty.
But I believe there was enough evidence on the record for a reasonable jury to find premeditation.
I’m not sure the trial was unflawed, though. Several evidentiary decisions by the judge are sure to be questioned on appeal.
In particular, the judge denied a defense request to “re-enact” the boat disposal portion of the prosecution’s case. In the prosecution’s theory of the crime, Peterson, along with the body of his very pregnant wife, and several home-made concrete anchors, dumped his wife’s body at sea, weighed down with the concrete anchors. The defense sought to show that dumping such a heavy load over the side of a small boat would have been impossible, and would have swamped the boat. In other words, they claimed the prosecution’s theory of the crime was a physical impossibility, and they wanted to demonstrate that to the jury, but were not permitted to do so.