Capital Punishment

[robtex]

Let me use this case because everybody seems to know something about it to illustratate a point

The Cali Peterson murder case:
Cnn reference
www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/14/peterson.case/index.html

First off with the info presented on the e-papers he looks guilty but in the same breath I was not there and realize my opinion is very diluted info wise. The jurors obviously found him guilty and just sentenced him to die (see above link)

My problem with this....and it is a reaccuring theme that happens more often than not..it that it is based purely on circumstanial evidence meaning that their is no assurity that he did it...just a strong probality.

When i say no circumstanial...I mean no DNA, no witness no confession. The DA had a puzzle and with the help of law enforcement and others he put together a piece that showed a strong likleyhood of Peterson's guilt but no absolution which ..is not possible because of the lack of eye witness, DNA and confession.

Now they have condemed him to die and he will be put to death with an ever small cloud of doubt as to "if he really did it".

The jury gave him death based on his lack of emotion during the trial and pently phase. I have some alternate theories to why he showed no emotion and because emotion cannot really be proved (only assessed) by anyone other than the displayer I feel they are as valid as the jurors.

1) he was drained and could not present any more emotion
2) he is stoic by nature
3) he didn't love her and didn't have feelings for an unborn child (which is not proof of murder)
4) stoicsm is how he deals with fear
5) He has emotions but is poor at displaying them

If the jurors had found any of these alternate theories as valid as their concluding theory of he has no remorse so obviouly he killed her theory.....would they have voted to have him killed by the state?

If you spend a year reading two death penalty cases a month you will find that circumstancial evidence is widespread on murder convictions and for me killing someone based on the theory...no mater how valid..that can't absolutely be proven...makes it hard to sleep at night.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Let me use this case because everybody seems to know something about it to illustratate a point

The Cali Peterson murder case:
Cnn reference
www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/14/peterson.case/index.html

First off with the info presented on the e-papers he looks guilty but in the same breath I was not there and realize my opinion is very diluted info wise. The jurors obviously found him guilty and just sentenced him to die (see above link)

My problem with this....and it is a reaccuring theme that happens more often than not..it that it is based purely on circumstanial evidence meaning that their is no assurity that he did it...just a strong probality.

When i say no circumstanial...I mean no DNA, no witness no confession. The DA had a puzzle and with the help of law enforcement and others he put together a piece that showed a strong likleyhood of Peterson's guilt but no absolution which ..is not possible because of the lack of eye witness, DNA and confession.

Now they have condemed him to die and he will be put to death with an ever small cloud of doubt as to "if he really did it".

The jury gave him death based on his lack of emotion during the trial and pently phase. I have some alternate theories to why he showed no emotion and because emotion cannot really be proved (only assessed) by anyone other than the displayer I feel they are as valid as the jurors.

1) he was drained and could not present any more emotion
2) he is stoic by nature
3) he didn't love her and didn't have feelings for an unborn child (which is not proof of murder)
4) stoicsm is how he deals with fear
5) He has emotions but is poor at displaying them

If the jurors had found any of these alternate theories as valid as their concluding theory of he has no remorse so obviouly he killed her theory.....would they have voted to have him killed by the state?

If you spend a year reading two death penalty cases a month you will find that circumstancial evidence is widespread on murder convictions and for me killing someone based on the theory...no mater how valid..that can't absolutely be proven...makes it hard to sleep at night.

Look, from what I've read it looks like he did it, however, there was a woman in Australia who was sent to prison for infanticide after a dingo came into the family tent at Ulluru and took her child, pretty much based on a ballsed up case and the fact that she didn't seem to show any emotion.
She was later released when they figured out what a cock up the whole thing had been.
You shouldn't be able to sentence someone to die on anything other than solid proof.

 

[painted wolf]

unfortunatly twelve 'average' people decide if you live or die. I'm sorry if this sounds rude but I shure as hell don't want my life decided by 'average' Americans. Average americans have short attention spans, poor reasoning skills and hosts of other things that make me learly of having them hold my life in thier hands. Smooth talking lawyers are trained to milk emotions over reason in juries. Honestly I think that people voted for Petersons death not based on reason but emotion... emotion has little place in the justice system. They voted to kill him because they didn't like him personally not because they felt the crime justified the punnishment. IMHO.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

What did you say?

 

[painted wolf]

I think that the evidence that I heard... and here I have to say that it wasn't all the evidence, just the watered down media evidence.... pointed to his guilt. I do not think that it was strong enough to warrent the death penalty however.

wa:do

 

[robtex]

I think that the evidence that I heard... and here I have to say that it wasn't all the evidence, just the watered down media evidence.... pointed to his guilt. I do not think that it was strong enough to warrent the death penalty however.

wa:do

on what specific grounds do you base that statement on?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Painted Wolf -
I find it odd, because like you, I only had the evidence that was presented in the media, but I didn't think they had enough evidence to convict him. I've served on juries three times in my life, and from what we saw in the media, I would not have voted to convict him. Make no mistake, I think he almost certainly did it, but I didn't see anything that clearly linked him to the murder.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[robtex]

Painted Wolf -
I find it odd, because like you, I only had the evidence that was presented in the media, but I didn't think they had enough evidence to convict him. I've served on juries three times in my life, and from what we saw in the media, I would not have voted to convict him. Make no mistake, I think he almost certainly did it, but I didn't see anything that clearly linked him to the murder.

Thanks,
TVOR

lol the lynch mob outside the courthouse would have voted to lynch you!!! Seriously, though......in cases where evidence suggests he /she may have did it (and we can find another gray area cases.there are plenty of those to go around), if there is no DNA /witness / phsical evidence...but cirucmstancal only and you believe in the death penatly does that mean with only tangiable proof should the death penatly be used?

And if this is so, what happens to people with circumstancial evidence against them?

 

[painted wolf]

personally I think when you added up the 'fishing trip' with the missing concrete he used to make 'anchors' for his boat and the abundant strange behaviors, that it may make for a strong if circumstancial case. Unfortunatly I don't know about any of the forensiscs evidence and other such evidence. I wish I did, I would feel better than just having a 'gut feeling' and stringing circumstancial bits together.

and again I said pointed to, not proved.. his guilt.

If there is no strong physical evidence to tie a criminal to a crime then the death penalty should not be an option. In the end circumstancial evidence is not full-proof. Only full-proof evidence should justify a death sentance.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

Just yesterday, I was able to pass a wreck and NOT stop to oogle at the carnage. Had the police and ambulance not been there, I would have felt compelled to lend some assistance.

I am content that his fate was decided by 12 of his peers. I do not feel a need to second guess them unless I am provided the same evidence and the same arguments.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Robtex -
I would have to say that in the absence of reliable eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, or strong physical evidence, I would not see the death penalty as an option. Then again, when you remove those three types of evidence, I would be hard pressed to vote for conviction, regardless of the punishment that might loom.

TVOR

 

[robtex]

TVOR I cannot find published stats on the FBI website or elsewhere(maybe somebody else can find and post) but I spent a year on
www.ncadp.org
looking at alerts years back because I was dating a woman at the time who was strongly against the death penalty. She talked about it alot and showed me that website and over the course of about 2 years I read cases on it a few times a week. Maybe 5 a week. They were short and to the point. I was appalled at times. So many of them were such weak cases (even when I cross referenced for a netural opinion on yahoo) that I couldn't imagine justify killing them. I think a lot of them may have been guilty but like my really long post the three things ..dna /witness / physical evidence was missing a lot of the times.

Don't get me wrong some were looking really guilty and some had eyewitness (not counting jail house snitches) dna or a bloody shirt in the back of their car..but a whole lot of them were purely circumstanical. It was at that time that I decided it was wrong.

My time in the probation dept reeinforeced that opinion as I saw the machine in action and realized that although the justice system is very effiecent and we are blessed with what we have that it was set up to railroad murder convictions because judges police and the legal teams for the state do what the taxpayers like and the taxpayers like a black and white high conviction rate that makes them feel safe. That is reality as I have seen it.

If you are a mayor, judge, police chief or such and you want to look good to the tax payers catch killers and put them on death row. It is very black and white to many taxpayers and voters.....who don't see the machine in action but do see the results.

Maybe the system is fixable with an adjustment of parameters on what can constitute a captial death case and what cannot but I gotta say that reading 20-50 death cases online will be a real eye opener to anyone who does.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Robtex - I have no reason to doubt your statements, or to question your beliefs. I am in agreement with you, when you say that the system is flawed. I am not saying that everyone on Death Row is truly guilty - I am not that naive. I am saying that when the evidence against someone is beyond question, and they have committed a capital crime, I would have no problem whatsoever being involved in putting them to death.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scott1]

I would have no problem whatsoever being involved in putting them to death.

I would wager to say you've never killed another human being...... you'd have no problem?

 

[robtex]

Robtex - I have no reason to doubt your statements, or to question your beliefs. I am in agreement with you, when you say that the system is flawed. I am not saying that everyone on Death Row is truly guilty - I am not that naive. I am saying that when the evidence against someone is beyond question, and they have committed a capital crime, I would have no problem whatsoever being involved in putting them to death.

Thanks,
TVOR

Granted but the perfect world where cases are easy to navitgate and evidence is beyond question is almost non existant. It happens but not too often. Its hard for me to take the death penatly out of its current context cause that it the reality of it today. I don't think that I can say what if ..and know what if comes a long every once in a blue moon. I am all for keeping the stystem in a constant state of improvement but in the intrim am not happy about what I have read on capitial cases.

 

[fromthe heart]

I think it takes a lot of guts to say someone has no right to lfe. I think that decission must be a very hard one to make in some situations. There are situations like have been described where I think yes this person doesn't deserve to live. It is a very tough thing to do in any case and as one pointed out let him without sin cast the first stone...I don't know if it's right...it certianly is in some extreme situations but I think it has to be weighed carefully and the decission should be certian that they have the correct guilty party. I understand there have been some excuted that were innocent...That is the risk one would have to take when saying another persons life was over. An eye for an eye? If I went out and shot someone I would say I deserved to be shot as well unless I did it in self defense.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Capitol Punishment would be better served if it was "do unto them as they did unto others", victims of violent crimes did not have the luxury of a last meal (that they knew of) or years waiting and appeals processes, they were terrorized, sometimes being raped or tortured before death- they were given no mercy or thought to and the families were/are left to pick up the pieces. In turn, no mercy or thought should be given to them- but I say this only in cases were there is no doubt that this person commited the crime.

There is a saying that goes "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" but I see it as if one pokes out your eye and you do nothing and they poke out the other you are the only one blind.

 

[Doc]

I used to eat meat. I used to be gun ho on war. I used to support the death penalty. I have changed since those days. I respect all forms of life. I am a very peaceful person and have not fought anyone in over 4 years. And I oppose the death penalty. We are taught in schools to turn the other cheek and not hit back. I think the government sets a poor example for us when they execute people. I also believe that even our most hated sinners have a chance at redemption and repentance whether they are incarcerated their whole life or not. Whether they believe in Allah, Jesus, or no God at all, they still deserve a chance. Execution just seems barbaric to me. Look at Lord of the Rings trilogy, there were several characters who should of been executed (GOllum, Wormtounge) but they were spared and some did the greatest deeds of them all.

 

[firstsamuel]

I wish I could figure out how to give some frubals ( I'm new). I would give them to Jensa! That was a tasty point: "we don't rape the rapist, then why kill the murderer?". The thing that we all have to bear in mind about people is that they grow and have the opportunity to change their behaviour, and some indeed do. I made this point to someone ( not here) and they said " That's all the more reason why we should execute them quickly." I guess before they have a chance to repent. How is that for a hateful attitude? I do think that they should be kept from harming others. That's not debatible for me. But, it's unnecessary that they be tortured (Abu Graib). Don't take me wrong, I hate murder and people who do it. But, Jesus said that all sin would be forgiven men by God. So, how can we be right to not forgive when God is willing to?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hello, and welcome, firstsamuel! Glad to have you here! (If you'd like to give someone some frubals, you click on the "Frubals" link that's right next to the awards box at the upper right hand part of a person's post. You can include a note, if you'd like, and I find it helps to add one's name, since they don't know whom the frubals are coming from, otherwise.)