I find it disturbing that a man could be sentenced to death in America because he 'seems' guilty or 'we think' he is guilty. Not one shread of real evidence.

Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I haven't followed this case/trial at all, but everyone I hear on the radio seems to concede that all the evidence against him was circumstantial. Strongly circumstantial, but circumstantial no less.

I was concerned about the conviction...but the death penalty?

I understand he probably did it, but people can't be casual about the death penalty.

DrTorch Wrote:I understand he probably did it, but people can't be casual about the death penalty.

Life in prison...............I am ok with that..................Death Penalty, gives me problems in this case.

.......................and I am not against the Death Penalty on principle................just that this one bothers me a bit.

The death penalty in California sounds like a life sentence; they hardly ever execute anyone. But I agree, the death penalty was too much based on the evidence.

No one here sat on the jury. Nor did any of the reporters. The jury convicted and sentenced him - unanimously. I don't think they took it lightly and I don't believe any of them would want to sentence anyone to death should they not have very strong convictions.
IMO the circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming I don't disagree with their verdict or sentence. His actions spoke volumes. And, there was no (hard) evidence that anyone else commited the murders either.
But I didn't sit on the jury either....
He still has about 20-30 years to prove he didnt do it.
jw

But tigerjoe, what kind of precedent does it set when you start committing people to death row based on circumstantial evidence, regardless how overwhelming it is?

And about having 20-30 years to prove it... That is assuming someone on the outside is willing to research the DNA evidence and put in the time to prove he is innocent.

i'm not sure you guys understand the reality of criminal prosecutions. you refer to circumstantial evidence as if it's a bad thing. there's indirect evidence (also called "circumstantial") and there's direct evidence (usually an eyewitness), but the overwhelming number of criminal prosecutions rely upon circumstantial evidence, often exclusively.

fingerprints and dna are forms of circumstantial evidence. furthermore, eyewitness testimony is increasingly called into question as inherently unreliable.

<a href='http://www.truthinjustice.org/navy-study.htm' target='_blank'>For example</a>

Open Secrets Wrote:But tigerjoe, what kind of precedent does it set when you start committing people to death row based on circumstantial evidence, regardless how overwhelming it is?

I don't really know the answer to your question, but I am sure there have been many convicted and sentenced to die with similar evidence. As well, how many have been sentenced to death by eyewitnesses that were later overturned due to other evidence? Thats the same difference. Besides, the verdict had been rendered. Why weigh or debate the kind of evidence used to come to that verdict? If that were the case, then a verdict of guilty should never be reached for that charge, and a lesser charge should be considered.

My point is he was tried by a jury of his peers, who were approved by both the prosecution and defense, who convicted and sentenced the defendant in accordance with the laws of the US and California. Because he was found guilty of this heinous crime, the jury, imo, is responsible for sentencing the criminal to the full extent of the law. Being that a jury of his peers found him guilty of a double murder, his own family none-the-less who he is supposed to protect first and foremost, I think sentencing him to death is a no-brainer.

jw

[QUOTE] I don't really know the answer to your question, but I am sure there have been many convicted and sentenced to die with similar evidence. As well, how many have been sentenced to death by eyewitnesses that were later overturned due to other evidence? Thats the same difference. Besides, the verdict had been rendered. Why weigh or debate the kind of evidence used to come to that verdict? If that were the case, then a verdict of guilty should never be reached for that charge, and a lesser charge should be considered.

My point is he was tried by a jury of his peers, who were approved by both the prosecution and defense, who convicted and sentenced the defendant in accordance with the laws of the US and California. Because he was found guilty of this heinous crime, the jury, imo, is responsible for sentencing the criminal to the full extent of the law. Being that a jury of his peers found him guilty of a double murder, his own family none-the-less who he is supposed to protect first and foremost, I think sentencing him to death is a no-brainer. [QUOTE]

Why debate the evidence? because a man's life is on the line. Also, if he didn't do it the real person is still out there.

Just because a jury found him guilt, doesn't mean that they didn't get it wrong. Also, there is too much circumstantial evidence to sentance a man to death. If they had some eye witnesses or a murder weapon then that's a different story, but that isn't the case. Without those two, there is doubt. And with doubt there can be not guilt verdict forget about death penalty.

Also, while I'm ranting, why is this case national news? If the two parties involved had not been white, good looking people, this would be local news in CA. There are people killed in other cities everyday, you don't see them on TV. Why? I'm not starting a political argument here about repressed minorities, but asking an honest question.

JTiger Wrote:Also, while I'm ranting, why is this case national news?&nbsp; If the two parties involved had not been white, good looking people, this would be local news in CA.&nbsp; There are people killed in other cities everyday, you don't see them on TV.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; I'm not starting a political argument here about repressed minorities, but asking an honest question.

<a href='http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=10312' target='_blank'>http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum=10312</a>

[quote]Media complicit in the dumbing down of America
By THOMAS J. LUCENTE Jr.
419-993-2095
tlucente@limanews.com

 &nbsp; In the world of mass media, there is an idea known as the Agenda-Setting theory, which posits that the mass media sets the public agenda by how and what they decide to cover. It is an attempt to explain why there is an almost exact correlation between the public and media ordering of priorities.
 &nbsp; One example of this theory at work is the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C.’s Watergate Hotel. The break-in did not concern many Americans until The Washington Post decided to aggressively put the story on the front page. It caught on and Americans became interested.
 &nbsp; The theory’s chief proponents are journalism professors Maxwell McCombs, of the University of Texas, and Donald Shaw, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
 &nbsp; Their theory suggests that the media frame stories in such a way as to not only tell the public what to think about, but also what and how to think about it and even what to do about it.
 &nbsp; In other words, when the media deem something as important the public believes it must be important.
 &nbsp; There are two things frightening about this theory. The first comes about when one considers who sets the agenda for the agenda setters: political spin doctors.
 &nbsp; For example, in 1988, George Bush was able to focus media attention on the release of Willie Horton from a Massachusetts prison. Not exactly the most important issue of the day.
 &nbsp; Bill Clinton was able to convince the media, who in turn convinced a fair number of Americans, that his felonious behavior was “just about sex.

My problem with the death penalty is not the premise of the death penalty, but the application of it.

The crime Scott Peterson was convicted of was way beyond horrible...but the death penalty?

The death penalty should be reserved for those who present a danger to society in the even they are ever released...basically, they should be the group of people so horrible that there is nothing that could even be done to rehabilitate them into a "safe" member of society.

Asssuming he did it (goin' theoretical on y'alls @sses!), what are the chances of him murdering another human being IF he were to ever set foot outside of prison walls again? Now compare that to someone who has been in and out of legal trouble and murdered someone in the act of committing a crime; say armed robbery, rape, or during an escape?

Unfortunately, the death penalty has turned into a chance at revenge for the jury...as if sending someone to death row somehow vindicates those who were murdered. Also, in light of the somewhat recent Illinois situation, I find myself less and less convinced that the death penalty is truly serving the purposed for which it was intended.

Lastly...it is actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than on death row until their execution.

I say let them rot in prison and contemplate why they're there...and then when they're done contemplating, they can sit there for another 40-50 years!

99Tiger Wrote:My problem with the death penalty is not the premise of the death penalty, but the application of it.

I've been stricken from two jury panels for voicing this opinion. Of course my opinion had a little different basis that yours: I think the death penalty has lost much of the deterent effect it used to have because it is (a) carried out far too long after conviction, (b) is far too antiseptic and &copy; far too private. When asked to clarify that, I simply say said, "If we gave them one appeal and then let them swing on the courthouse steps for 3 days like they did in the wild west, then the public would know the consequences of certain acts are real and relatively immediate."

That comment has, in fact, gotten two entire panels stricken on the basis that they would likely be unduly prejudiced from having heard it.

You copyrighted statement b? :laugh:

I am firmly against the death penalty. I believe it contributes to the culture of death that is growing in this country and solves essentially nothing. It is expensive, as most death-row inmates file appeals that go on for years and additionally burden the courts. In addition to which, yes, human error is all too possible, especially when a jury's heart-strings are tugged to the breaking point...which they often are in murder cases.

Life sentences allow for the possibility of errors being corrected. You can at least finanically compensate a person who's been wrongfully imprisoned for five years. For the dead, there's no going back.

As for the woman in this case...I wouldn't be shocked if she were mentally ill.