A judge formally sentenced Scott Peterson to death today. link
I personally think he is guilty —but giving some one the death penalty because of a mountain of circumstancial evidence without direct physical evidence is wrong. It makes you believe a bit more that their might be innocent people in prison. I’m all for the death penalty, fry the bas*** but it better be beyond a shadow of a doubt he did it, not based on the fact that the prosecutors put up a better arguement.
What say you?
Re: death penalty without physical evidence
Media made him a villain and hence that affects the outcome of jury. So where is the innocent until proved guilty law?
Re: death penalty without physical evidence
As any lawyer will tell you, physical evidence is not required for conviction. Even a body isn't required, which in this case mysteriously showed up at the place of his alibi.
The jury and the judge are convinced he should be sentenced to death based on evidence, and not on media hype. I haven't seen the evidence, and more than likely none of you have either, so I wouldn't speculate on the motives of the jury and the judge.
The guy is totally devoid of emotion. That by itself, doesn't mean anything. Except that if some innocent person were to be charged with killing his wife and unborn child, one may expect more emotion and outrage. Scott even didn't try to defend himself on the witness stand.
Re: death penalty without physical evidence
There was this interview with his own sister. She talked about the time when the whole world was searching for his missing wife and Scott was at her house, trying to flirt with their 20 year old sitter, acting all bachelorish, whipping up martinis for her, calling them "flirtinis". Even if there is lack of physical evidence, there's a lot more to convict his ass. But you are right. Maybe he was bored with his wife and once she went missing, he was like "phew" and thus the lack of emotion.
I agree, without physical evidence, I would probably think twice. There have been many a cases in the past where innocent people were sentenced to life based on circumstantial evidence. Later they find out that the person was innocent(with help of DNA testing and stuff), but all this only after the person has lost almost a decade of his/her life serving time for a crime he never committed.
But in cases like Scott Peterson where the circumstatial evidence is overwhelming, one wouldn't want to take chances, what if only the physical evidence is lacking yet he really has done the crime, which seems to be the case.
Re: death penalty without physical evidence
The point isn't whether he is guilty or not. It is quite obvious he his. But the issue is how he can be given death penalty without actually presenting physical evidence? This is a huge flaw in judicial system when emotions and perception of jury takes over the actual evidence or proof.
Re: death penalty without physical evidence
you guys are forgetting that jury of his peers found him guilty and recommended death sentence. that was only a recommendation and its upto the judge to sentence him to death or life in prison. It would appear that this particular judge is a conservative one.
I think it prolly will be better for him to die than be someone's wife for the rest of his life at the notorious San Quentin state prison.
Cant wait to hear Jay Leno :D
Re: death penalty without physical evidence
I still don't get it. Beautiful wife, home, a job, cars, boat, baby on the way and he threw it all away.
One thing is for sure... OJ must be laughing his a$$ off right now . I can hear him now on the golf course. "You loose honky".