Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 1K0N on December 13, 2004, 03:53:30 PM
-
(http://guillotines.us/Hangmans_Noose_Gallows/gallows.jpg)
-
Death penality in California= life.
-
Originally posted by wombatt
Death penality in California= life.
A) Who the hell cares. Many more apalling crimes get two paragraphs in a newspaper, yet this one is convenient for the press to jump all over due to the accomdations, and location of the crime.
B) I've heard its an avg. of 25 years on death row in CA.
-
Gonna commit Murder..best to do it Cali. and Not Texas.
Death Row in Texas...means Death.
-
Yeah he will be going through appeals untill he dies in prison, I am actually suprised that they gave him the death penalty. I mean it was not a great case presented by prosecuters so I figured the jury might decide to only give life in prison. That way if they find out in 30 years they F-ed up then they didnt kill an innocent man. Before anyone jumps on me I am not saying he is innocent, im just saying that since it wasnt an open and shut case the jury may have been scared of giving death.
-
RT
I would tend to agree with you on the point of it not being a slam dunk case. My wife and my Mom watched every dang bit of it. I mean ALLLLL of it.
So I got the play by play whether I wanted it or not. The evidence was purely circumstantial. I mean all of it. But MAN was that evidence alot. I think he was guilty as all get out. No doubt by the bits I saw and all.
Still the death penalty was a huge verdict to get to.
I don't think he'll ever get the needle anyway. Those California Latte' sippers barley got the nuts to kill serial killers. :lol
-
Originally posted by RedTop
RT
I would tend to agree with you on the point of it not being a slam dunk case. My wife and my Mom watched every dang bit of it. I mean ALLLLL of it.
So I got the play by play whether I wanted it or not. The evidence was purely circumstantial. I mean all of it. But MAN was that evidence alot. I think he was guilty as all get out. No doubt by the bits I saw and all.
Still the death penalty was a huge verdict to get to.
I don't think he'll ever get the needle anyway. Those California Latte' sippers barley got the nuts to kill serial killers. :lol
You might be surprised, RedTop- while California was the first into the permissive liberalism of the 70s-80s, they may be the last out on the current trend of a more conservative society. Give us time.
What a death penalty sentence means in California (as opposed to life without parole) is that Scott Peterson will spend fifteen years, minimum, on death row before his appeal is heard. That means fifteen years in a tiny little cell in the old section of San Quentin, no general population privelages, and if he's lucky his solitary confinement cell will have a view of the very bay he dumped his wife's murdered body into.
Personally I feel justice would be better served if he got life, was released into the general prison population and became Bubba's wife, but this works for me. Give the boy fifteen years to think about what'll happen if his appeal is successful and he's commuted to life without parole- the best that happens is he still ends up married to Bubba.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Personally I feel justice would be better served if he got life, was released into the general prison population and became Bubba's wife, but this works for me. Give the boy fifteen years to think about what'll happen if his appeal is successful and he's commuted to life without parole- the best that happens is he still ends up married to Bubba.
Agreed.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
My wife and my Mom watched every dang bit of it. I mean ALLLLL of it.
What level of hell do you reside in?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
A) Who the hell cares. Many more apalling crimes get two paragraphs in a newspaper, yet this one is convenient for the press to jump all over due to the accomdations, and location of the crime.
Fo' shizzle.
Airhead,
"Personally I feel justice would be better served if he got life, was released into the general prison population and became Bubba's wife, but this works for me."
Damn I hate this arguement against the death penalty. It's tacit approval for torture. It's the states responibility to protect people that do not have care and control over thier own safety. The same reasons for the death penalty being bad (say case of an innocent person being convict) apply to tacit torture...if that's not enough to convince you, take into account that Mr. Black just agreed with you.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Gonna commit Murder..best to do it Cali. and Not Texas.
Death Row in Texas...means Death.
Ship him to Texas, we have an Express Lane.
(http://www.hawaiihighways.com/zipper-lane-entrance.jpg)
-
What was that sound?
Oh, it was the sound of our justice system passing away. Shame.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Fo' shizzle.
Airhead,
"Personally I feel justice would be better served if he got life, was released into the general prison population and became Bubba's wife, but this works for me."
Damn I hate this arguement against the death penalty. It's tacit approval for torture. It's the states responibility to protect people that do not have care and control over thier own safety. The same reasons for the death penalty being bad (say case of an innocent person being convict) apply to tacit torture...if that's not enough to convince you, take into account that Mr. Black just agreed with you.
I was thinking that while I was typing it, Thrawn- ideally we put him in a little cell and he rots there for the rest of his life. I heard Laci's step dad in an interview, he said Scott got what he deserved. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I wouldn't tell Laci's family that Scott should live.
-
I really didn't care about this case. Hell, it seemed rediculous the amount of media attention it got.
BUT, today I read that there were jurors that sentenced him to death based on him not showing emotion.
Holy flipping **** sticks...
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I really didn't care about this case. Hell, it seemed rediculous the amount of media attention it got.
BUT, today I read that there were jurors that sentenced him to death based on him not showing emotion.
Holy flipping **** sticks...
-SW
The jurors didn't sentence him to death. They recommended death as a sentence. Big difference.
The Judge makes the ultimate decision.
But I know what you're saying....I'm just being anal. :)
-
Ripsnort Anal?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The jurors didn't sentence him to death. They recommended death as a sentence. Big difference.
The Judge makes the ultimate decision.
But I know what you're saying....I'm just being anal. :)
Ripsnort, do you know what would happen if that judge failed to follow the Jury's recomendation? The rioting would make Rodney King's riots look like a picnic. We'd have women looting sporting goods and hardware stores, destroying fishing poles, tools and everything else male. Hetrosexual sex in America would vanish. Televisions would no longer broadcast sporting events. Our wives would go on shopping sprees.
Now before you jump down my throat, saying I'm exaggerating, be advised it's not me predicting the dire consiquences of the wrong verdict- it's my wife. If you don't believe her, then ask your own wife. She'll tell you.
-
there was no solid evidence against him.
Would you, if you were a juror, be able to sleep at night knowing that you handed out a death penalty based on such evidence?
I remember a case not so long ago of a man who had spent like 12 years in prision for raping a woman who was apparently drunk out of her mind when it happened. The woman testified against the guy and he got sent to jail.
2 or so years ago dna evidence cleared him and he was free. SOLID evidence freed him but circumstantial evidence convicted him.
I dont know if this guy killed his wife or not, but imagine sending him to the grave and a few years later solid evidence coming up that proves his innocence.
Its a touchy subject but i think he should get life in prision instead of death penalty.
-
Originally posted by OIO
there was no solid evidence against him.
Would you, if you were a juror, be able to sleep at night knowing that you handed out a death penalty based on such evidence?
I remember a case not so long ago of a man who had spent like 12 years in prision for raping a woman who was apparently drunk out of her mind when it happened. The woman testified against the guy and he got sent to jail.
2 or so years ago dna evidence cleared him and he was free. SOLID evidence freed him but circumstantial evidence convicted him.
I dont know if this guy killed his wife or not, but imagine sending him to the grave and a few years later solid evidence coming up that proves his innocence.
Its a touchy subject but i think he should get life in prision instead of death penalty.
My thoughts exactly! Thanks for typing that Tac!
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Ripsnort, do you know what would happen if that judge failed to follow the Jury's recomendation? The rioting would make Rodney King's riots look like a picnic. We'd have women looting sporting goods and hardware stores, destroying fishing poles, tools and everything else male. Hetrosexual sex in America would vanish. Televisions would no longer broadcast sporting events. Our wives would go on shopping sprees.
Now before you jump down my throat, saying I'm exaggerating, be advised it's not me predicting the dire consiquences of the wrong verdict- it's my wife. If you don't believe her, then ask your own wife. She'll tell you.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
This guy murders his wife and unborn child in cold blood because he's tired of being married. What sentence other than death could possibly result in justice?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
This guy murders his wife and unborn child in cold blood because he's tired of being married. What sentence other than death could possibly result in justice?
showing the passion of the christ are you?
The evidence is circumstantial.. All circumstantial.. I'm not saying he did not do it.. Just that it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you were the deciding vote to put the man to death and later found out it was just some wacked serial killer and not the husband, how would you sleep at night? Or wait, I know.. Jesus would forgive you for killing a man unjustly..
-
Originally posted by OIO
there was no solid evidence against him.
Would you, if you were a juror, be able to sleep at night knowing that you handed out a death penalty based on such evidence?
I remember a case not so long ago of a man who had spent like 12 years in prision for raping a woman who was apparently drunk out of her mind when it happened. The woman testified against the guy and he got sent to jail.
2 or so years ago dna evidence cleared him and he was free. SOLID evidence freed him but circumstantial evidence convicted him.
I dont know if this guy killed his wife or not, but imagine sending him to the grave and a few years later solid evidence coming up that proves his innocence.
Its a touchy subject but i think he should get life in prision instead of death penalty.
Oio, most murder trials, for lack of a witness, are based upon circumstantial evidence. I followed the trial, not dilligently, but enough to believe Scott Peterson is guilty...not "maybe" or "most likely" guilty, but guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury found.
I'm opposed to capital punishment because DNA evidence has exonerated so many previously convicted innocent people- but Scott Peterson is guilty, and during the penalty phase it's a bit late for the same jurors who convicted him to second guess that decision.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
showing the passion of the christ are you?
The evidence is circumstantial.. All circumstantial.. I'm not saying he did not do it.. Just that it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you were the deciding vote to put the man to death and later found out it was just some wacked serial killer and not the husband, how would you sleep at night? Or wait, I know.. Jesus would forgive you for killing a man unjustly..
That he murdered them was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with our law. Without severe and appropriate penalty there are those who would more easily shuck their conscience or humanity simply to satisfy their own depravity.
If I were a juror in a murder case I believe I would weigh it very carefully knowing that my "sleep" depended on justice. I would also hope to realize that judgment should be based on the law and not on how the crime compares to my own righteousness/unrighteousness.
-
I hear you Iron.. I suppose in the end 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is a subjective term..
-
For the the guys saying putting him to death on the very light evidence is wrong... well we wont be putting him to death.
The death penalty in Cali is like many other government programs here is fubar.
This guy is going to die of old age, not the needle. He will apeal for years. They will delay things, come up with new evidence his lawyers hid, and waste tax payers money in this already broke state..
All this means is he will be in for life, and spend more time in solitary. Hell he is prolly safer this way, with just life, he would mingle more with the general population and get shanked.
-
To convince someone without solid evidence is nothing more than persuasion.
You may have been led to believe he was guilty (thats the prosecutor's whole job!) , ,the jury may have been convinced he was guilty (oh he didnt cry or sob or look heartbroken during the trial? He must be guilty!!! Everyone reacts and behaves the same way dont they? So easy to define guilt by observing a complete stranger to you).... but there's still no solid proof that he did it.
No video recording of him in the act, no dna evidence .. no nothing.
Justice should be just.
If he is guilty then being in prision all his life is justice.
If he is not guilty but found guilty on circumstancial evidence and executed for it... there is no justice there but a crime.
Should we go and prosecute the executioner, jury, judge and lawyers for murder then? Cause they killed the wrong guy. on cold blood. premeditated murder.
Imo he should get life in prision..the evidence against him is big but not solid. everything points to him. So keep him in jail.
If solid evidence later shows he's guilty, then sure, go ahead and pop him. If said evidence shows hes innocent then the system will have to make damn sure all the years he lost in prision will be made up for.. for if I was sent to prision for something i didnt do and spent a decade there you bet your arse id sue the system to the point where even my grandkids will be living la vida loca.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What level of hell do you reside in?
:rofl
I work nights...so I missed all the live crap.
Having my Mom live here is actually great. My WIfe is just absolutley awsome. Couldnt ask for better.
Mom being termanally ill...Well there are good days and bad..but mostly good. Its actually a blessing to have her. I'll just leave it at that.:aok