I know the trial got a lot of attention on the Straight Dope way back when. He is still guilty but a judge ordered a new penalty phase trial:
If I recall correctly, death sentences in California are almost always commuted to life without parole as it saves on defending against the appeals. The governor has also stayed all executions as of last year. The last execution in California was in 2002. It was an inmate who had spent 23 years on death row. Thirteen convicts have been executed in California since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978. The shortest time on death row was 9 years and 7 months.
By all descriptions I’ve read of life on Death Row, it really is a fate worse than Death Itself.
I’ve had that impression, too.
But that brings up another question that I don’t understand: why does Death Row exist as a separate physcal location? It seems like a lot of extra effort and expense for the prison. Why can’t they put the death-sentence prisoners in the same wing or tier as the life-without-parole prisoners?
My guess is that it’s partly to keep them from killing themselves (“You’ll die when we say you’ll die, and not one minute before!”), partly from killing someone else or being killed. A crime heinous enough to get the death penalty is bound to make another prisoner want to do the honor.
Footnote: The above may sound like I strongly support the death penalty.I strongly don’t.
Yeah the Governor stayed all death sentences last year, but this current activity seems focused on Peterson’s actual technical sentence, and I doubt very much his life will be all that much different if it is successful. Instead of being sentenced to death (which, as noted, is not a likely outcome), they are looking to change that to Life, I suppose. I am not sure if this is a strategy to whittle-down his legal problems for some sort of better result than spending the rest of his days behind bars.
If you’re already facing the death penalty, there’s really nothing to stop you from hurting or killing other prisoners if you get put in the gen pop - after all, what more could the system do to you?
I don’t know if murders get much more heinous than this one. IMHO he deserves death.
There were a ton of things wrong with that trial but there was still overwhelming evidence against him. As for the death penalty, I’m against it on general principles but it wouldn’t bother me if he got it. The fact that he doesn’t want it himself tells me he deserves it. He’s probably a sociopath and punishment is really pointless, which is a good argument for the death penalty.
But there were serious problems with his trial, someone less clearly guilty could be convicted and sentenced to death in our system and probably has, even if the process is slow and sloppy we have to suffer through it to have a chance of holding it together.
Hey, I don’t want it either!
Did you murder anyone?
I always had a problem with the prosecution’s theory of the crime. While I didn’t doubt that he killed her and tried to hide the body, I didn’t believe he killed her to be with another woman (specifically, Amber Frey, but it could be anyone); my stumbling block was this: if her killed her to be with someone else, why hide the body? as long as she was “missing,” he wasn’t free to be with anyone else. If he needed her out of the way so he could be with someone else, then he needed people to know she was dead.
Also, his running away in disguise didn’t jibe with him wanting to be with someone else he already knew.
I always thought he killed her accidentally, in a fight possibly, and then hurriedly got rid of the body.
So, yeah, he killed her, he was guilty-- but not of premeditated murder, and premeditation is necessary for the death penalty (not that I’m an advocate of it-- I’m strongly against it, but as long as it exists, play by the rules).
Also, and this isn’t logic, this is just my feeling, but I thought a lot of the public sentiment against him, and the jury’s verdict was cute, white, & pregnant.
The perceived value of the victim, nor sentiment, should not play roles in determining punishment. I don’t believe in victim impact statements during penalty phases. Killing a homeless person who once kicked a dog, and regularly pestered pedestrians for change, should get you the same sentence as killing a cute, white woman whose mother can whip up a lot of tears for the camera.
But yeah-- as to why California even has the death penalty if it never applies it-- and the fact is, it can’t, because statutorily, a physician needs to be present, and the California AMA has as a body, refused to be present at executions, resulting in a de facto moratorium-- but, according to some lawyers to whom I have biological times, it’s useful in plea bargaining. Even with a de facto moratorium, no one wants to be on death row, nor have the possibility of a change it statute remove the “moratorium,” so people who are fairly certain of being convicted will often plea bargain for a life sentence to avoid death row.
Plus, even a life sentence without parole does no preclude release some day-- there are other kinds of releases besides parole. There is commutation, there is compassionate release, and even though you can’t appeal a plea bargain under ordinary circumstances, sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances. There are a few other sui generis circumstances under which “without parole” people have been released.
But even then, life on death row is just horrible-- “gen pop” is a cakewalk, apparently, compared to death row. Which may be another reason death row is the way it is.
No, but your theory is that “Since he doesn’t want it”, he should be executed.
Yes, because he murdered his pregnant wife.
I’m not following your logic either. Yes, he’s been convicted and almost everyone thinks he’s guilty but I find it highly unlikely that most killers would acquiesce to the death penalty at that point. I don’t think that fighting the death penalty is probative. Also, under your theory, wouldn’t the innocent person have to accept the penalty, since it’s the guilty that fight it?
I’ll also note that a surprisingly large number of men (mostly) kill their spouse to end up with another woman. The wife is missing, but somehow, in their head, they’ll get the insurance policy and shack up with Number 2. Some of them get away with it too.
I think he did it. Because he did it he shouldn’t want to live. That he is not wanting to kill himself after doing such a horrible thing is a good reason to want him dead. That’s not in any way evidence that he is guilty or grounds to apply the death penalty, it is my opinion. And I don’t believe in the death penalty anyway so it wouldn’t make any difference.
What do you think of a man who killed his pregnant wife and doesn’t think he deserves to die?
That he’s human scum and likely the type of person who would feel no remorse and would fight to live.
Exactly.
Again, I think an innocent person would also fight to live. I don’t follow your argument.
We can agree that he’s scum.
A decent person worthy of life would not want to live after committing such an act. This has nothing at all to do with what innocent people do.