Scott Peterson is...

Is...(SPOILER)Guilty on murder in the first and second degree

What are you're thoughts on this? Personally I thought the media victimized him so much that he should go free. And also, I believe he got a 2nd degree murder charge against him because he killed his unborn child... WTF?! If abortion is legal in this country how can he be charged for the murder of an unborn baby? It makes no sense at all. Anyways, correct me if I am wrong on this, I didn't exactly follow the case all that much seing as how it should never have been such a big deal in the first place. Anyways, I think he was treated unfairly, and I am quite disgusted at the outcome.

He should be let go because of media treatment? There was immense evidence and plenty of motive, he killed his wife and child. It was a very large deal, as it should be. I dont think the media circus should be involved, but it is a very big deal. An innocent woman was murdered by the man she loved, not to mention the baby. I've followed this as much as I can, and I believe the man was fully guilty, and I'm glad he was convicted.

Regardless, I dont think the media's presence should influence a verdict in anyway, and the thought of setting a man free regardless of the evidence because of the media is utterly ridiculous.

I think the wife was far enough along so that she couldn't get an abortion legally. On top of that he was guilty as hell and his victimization was his own fault. What a douche.

People seem to miss the fact that Scott Peterson tried a few disguises to flee the country and go south of the border. If that doesn't tell you he's guilty, I don't know what will.

As for 2nd degree murder, I agree, he should get it. I don't remember how far along the baby was due, but the fact that she didn't get an abortion doesn't give anyone the license to outright kill a baby.

Quote:

---

As for 2nd degree murder, I agree, he should get it. I don't remember how far along the baby was due, but the fact that she didn't get an abortion doesn't give anyone the license to outright kill a baby.

---

But if we as a country will allow abortions, than I don't think we can turn around and get him for it. The baby doesn't legally exist, therefore it should not legally be a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

But if we as a country will allow abortions, than I don't think we can turn around and get him for it. The baby doesn't legally exist, therefore it should not legally be a crime.

---

It depends where you are. Abortions are legal in some cases. You can't walk into any clinic and ask for your unborn baby to die. Every state has a specific law that details the punishment of an unborn baby. In California, that law probably calls it 2nd degree murder.

Lacy Peterson was eight months pregnant.

Anyway, I figured almost right away that he was guilty almost right away, although my personal philosophy has always been "innocent until proven otherwise". Boring, I know. But the case that the defense tried to make, about cults and otherwise, was just too outlandish to be the least bit believable. Not to mention it didn't seem like much of a coincidence that he was fishing in Richmond the same day his wife disappeared, and that he partook in all sorts of shady activities after she was gone (trading in her truck, fleeing to Mexico with $10,000 and a few cell phones, etc.).

From the looks of the local news, people in Modesto seem relieved that justice has been served. I think they deserved that little bit of deliverance because of the fact that so many people spent their time and money to look for Lacy while Scott kicked back and didn't look like he had a care in the world. It wasn't just the family that was affected

Scott Peterson was tried in a situation where he was guilty untill proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I believe he did it, but I must protest the way the media handled themselves. I mean for the love of God! a TV movie portraying in no uncertain terms his guilt before the thing had even gone to trial? How in Heaven or Hell is any Jury supposed to remain objective and unbiased in such a case?

Normally I think very poorly of the press. After all this crap, I'm going to start writing to Congress to ask them to introduce legislation to keep the media's noses out of court proceedings until after a verdict has been reached. Let them print whatever they want. but not till after the fact. still freedom of the press, but the press' freedom isn't impinging on the freedom of everybody else.

Unless of course Justice and fair trials don't mean much to people anymore.

Quote:

---

Scott Peterson was tried in a situation where he was guilty untill proven guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I believe he did it, but I must protest the way the media handled themselves. I mean for the love of God! a TV movie portraying in no uncertain terms his guilt before the thing had even gone to trial? How in Heaven or Hell is any Jury supposed to remain objective and unbiased in such a case?

---

I agree with you 100% on this.

Quote:

---

Normally I think very poorly of the press. After all this crap, I'm going to start writing to Congress to ask them to introduce legislation to keep the media's noses out of court proceedings until after a verdict has been reached. Let them print whatever they want. but not till after the fact. still freedom of the press, but the press' freedom isn't impinging on the freedom of everybody else.

---

The only problem with this is that if there was no media covering these things than the people wouldn't know what was going on, and the government would have a new form of power over people.

I think most of us agree that the media went too far, but that doesn't mean he should be exonerated because of it.

I'm not sure how this case got so much attention. I'm sure there's thousands of other cases in the country full of sex, cheats, gays, lies, and other juicy stuff we can focus on.

This case got a lot of attention because his wife was "kiddnapped" on Chirstmas eve and she was pregnant. So there was coverage for the search. Then when she was found dead it became a issue of should the unborn be considered a human with rights and everything issue...or at least thats how the media played it. Then Scott only made it worse with his own escapades. Then his lawyer latter became the lawyer for Michael Jackson in addition to everything going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

The only problem with this is that if there was no media covering these things than the people wouldn't know what was going on, and the government would have a new form of power over people.

---

The way things are now, the media has a HUGE amount of power over people.

In many cases, felony proceedings are closed doors anyways, at least in this state. I suppose the State of California has different laws, but still. Why is it even somebody else's business who is being tried for what? If the accused is out on bail, they could institute a mandatory disclosure or something, say if it's an embezzeler applying at a bank.

The media doesn't care about truth or fairness or justice or ANY thing. All they care about is selling papers or getting expensive funding contracts. This just isn't right. media in the US = bad. real bad.

a) Glad he's guilty, he deserves everything for what he did.
b) I hate it when the media covers stuff like this to the extent that they did, which goes off into a different spiel entirely.

Yeah, I think the media was all over the place with it, the movie in particular was too much, but meh. The guy was obviously guilty, he got what he friggin' deserved. As for the baby, well, they found his body. That makes him a person, to me at least.

There was a MOVIE on this!?!? I didn't know that.

Also, I didn't follow the case closely, but I don't know of any hard evidence to convict him. As far as I can tell, it was all circumstantial. Sure, he probably did it, but you can't convict someone on that.

In my opinion, what the media did to Peterson is worse than what he did to Lacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

In my opinion, what the media did to Peterson is worse than what he did to Lacy.

---

Ridiculous media coverage being on the same level as stabbing a pregnant woman seems a little bit of an exaggeration, but yeah, it was pretty bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

In my opinion, what the media did to Peterson is worse than what he did to Lacy.

---

I hope that's just a FOS. But it's not the media's fault he tried to run away from the country.

Oh please, let's sentence reporters to death because they blatantly (it WAS bad) covered and OVER covered a story, and let's set free a man who decapitated HIS PREGNANT WIFE. Yeah. That makes sense.

Quote:

---

I hope that's just a FOS.

---

Well, if I knew what an FOS was, I could tell ya.

Have you watched any of the coverage? There was plenty of evidence, even if they didnt have the smoking gun. If it was all circumstantial, it wouldnt have gone to trial, and circumstantial evidence is fine as long as there's enough of it. He was cheating on her and expressed his wishes to leave her many times, but couldnt. He was abusive to her, according to her friends. Not heavily abusive, but he wasnt very nice. He was fishing in the area her body was found, or at least said he was fishing, even though the boat he was in wasnt the kind of boat one can use to fish where he said he was fishing. He did nothing while everyone was searching for her, actually he spent a lot of time on the phone with his girlfriend, trying to convince her to stay with him. When they found her body, as Strider already mentioned, he made a run for it with 10 grand in cash. I'm sure there was more, but I can only stomach so much so I didnt watch everything. Those're the facts learned from the news alone.

Actually, many people believe, and rightly so, that the evidence presented isn't enough to convict anyone, even though it's very obvious he did it. Circumstantial evidence is rarely ever enough to convince a jury, but ... like I said it's pretty obvious.

I had similar questions concerning the 2nd degree murder charge. It makes very little sense to me.

And as for my newly acquired mantra: The media only gives what the public shows interest in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

And as for my newly acquired mantra: The media only gives what the public shows interest in.

---

I disagree. The media shoves it down our throats and decide what we want to hear. Kind of like MTV a few decades ago, they shoved that music down our throats until we liked it.

I never liked the idea of a jury. These are people who are not lawyers and never had experience with these cases before and are asked to decide the fate of someone they don't even know.

Scott Peterson is guilty. WHY CAN'T ANYBODY SEE THAT???!!!



...Oh yeah.....I forgot......



"Everyone is innocent untill proven guilty."

is something wrong with that system? oh wait, just like the catholic priests scandel; preists were getting accused of molesting children, and they were being locked up with no evidence inplying they were guilty!

innocent until proven guilty, what a fine country this is.

as for scott peterson, i havent been paying to much attention to the trial, so i cannot say much on the subject. if he did murder his wife and unborn child, i dont believe he should get the death penalty. NOBODY deserves the death penalty, since they can serve enterity in the circles of hell and if he did actually do it, he can go insane in prison for all i care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dixie

"Everyone is innocent untill proven guilty."

---

He's been proven guilty.

yes, but everyone knows that people have been proven guilty, when they are acutally not. money is power, and the one who has more money can be easily presuaded...

Quote:

---

Have you watched any of the coverage? There was plenty of evidence, even if they didnt have the smoking gun. If it was all circumstantial, it wouldnt have gone to trial, and circumstantial evidence is fine as long as there's enough of it. He was cheating on her and expressed his wishes to leave her many times, but couldnt. He was abusive to her, according to her friends. Not heavily abusive, but he wasnt very nice. He was fishing in the area her body was found, or at least said he was fishing, even though the boat he was in wasnt the kind of boat one can use to fish where he said he was fishing. He did nothing while everyone was searching for her, actually he spent a lot of time on the phone with his girlfriend, trying to convince her to stay with him. When they found her body, as Strider already mentioned, he made a run for it with 10 grand in cash. I'm sure there was more, but I can only stomach so much so I didnt watch everything. Those're the facts learned from the news alone.

---

That is not enough to convict anyone. I would like someone to give me at least SOME hard evidence that he did it. Because if that is all there was, than his conviction is a crime, in my opinion. (Figuratively, of course.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

That is not enough to convict anyone. I would like someone to give me at least SOME hard evidence that he did it. Because if that is all there was, than his conviction is a crime, in my opinion. (Figuratively, of course.)

---

I'm not sure if you even bothered to read my posts, but the news reported he tried to flee the country in a flurry of disguises. That should tell you all you need to know.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure if you even bothered to read my posts, but the news reported he tried to flee the country in a flurry of disguises. That should tell you all you need to know.

---

Yeah that makes it seem like he did it, and he probably did. However, that still isn't enough evidence to convict him, because that alone is the only somewhat valid point I have heard so far, and you can't convict someone on that alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Yeah that makes it seem like he did it, and he probably did. However, that still isn't enough evidence to convict him, because that alone is the only somewhat valid point I have heard so far, and you can't convict someone on that alone.

---

That doesn't make it seem like he did it, it makes him react to actually doing it. He didn't probably did, he did.

What you're asking is the same for all cases. I mean there's only 2 people who know what Scott Peterson did, him and Lacey. It's the same way in ALL murder cases. I don't get your point...it's like you're saying everyone is innocent. What exactly is needed to convict a man other than concrete evidence?

From what you're saying, it's like if a man's fingerprint is found on the murder weapon, you'll say it's not enough to convict him. If a man is caught on camera, that's not enough to convict him. What kind of evidence do you think would actually need to prove the guy's guilt or innocence?

Quote:

---

What exactly is needed to convict a man other than concrete evidence?

---

That is not concrete evidence. I tjust makes it seem likely that he did it.

Quote:

---

From what you're saying, it's like if a man's fingerprint is found on the murder weapon, you'll say it's not enough to convict him. If a man is caught on camera, that's not enough to convict him. What kind of evidence do you think would actually need to prove the guy's guilt or innocence?

---

What you have mentioned here is concrete evidence, and it is enough to convict someone. As far as I can tell, no evidence of this magnitude was present in the Scott Peterson case.

Quote:

---

What exactly is needed to convict a man other than concrete evidence?

---

That is not concrete evidence. I tjust makes it seem likely that he did it.

Quote:

---

From what you're saying, it's like if a man's fingerprint is found on the murder weapon, you'll say it's not enough to convict him. If a man is caught on camera, that's not enough to convict him. What kind of evidence do you think would actually need to prove the guy's guilt or innocence?

---

What you have mentioned here is concrete evidence, and it is enough to convict someone. As far as I can tell, no evidence of this magnitude was present in the Scott Peterson case.

EDIT: Woosps. Im not exactly sure how that happened...

Quote:

---

That is not concrete evidence. I tjust makes it seem likely that he did it.

---

Not that your wrong, but many statements today can go a long ways just by even mentioning something. If someone said that they saw a murder, the police arnt going to take it lightly. As for this case about leaving after the murder, agreed that it looked suspicious, and that alone cannot judge a man if he's innocent or not, but it can sure as hell make a case out of it, and with todays corruption, that information alone could probably lead to a trial.

Now, which ones of you have watched the trial? I mean really watched it. I personally have only watched snippets, and I've gathered the evidence I've listed from that. Do any of you know if the evidence was solid enough? You cant say it was all circumstantial unless you've watched the trial, and nik it doesnt seem like you have according to your first few posts.

I have not watched the trial. I thought I said so in my first or second post, but perhaps not. I am simply saying that from the information I know, it seems like it was unfair, and I have yet to see anybody give any hard evidence as to whether or not he commited the crime. That, to me at least, is reason enough to think that there may not have been any hard evidence against Peterson. It would seem logical to me that if there was any real evidence, the media would have talked about it, and that I have yet to see. Im not saying that there for sure was no real evidence presented against Peterson, but I sure haven't seen any.

You probably did make it clear, I just didnt want to go back and double-check.

You may wanna check into that. Personally I think enough circumstantial evidence is far too much to ignore and perfectly fine and admissable. One or two things, maybe, but as many 'odd' things as he was up to just didnt seem right.

Regardless of what we think, though, he's been judged. As far as the media goes, those jurors were most likely kept from any and all forms of media during the trial, so it shouldnt have effected anything but the public's view of things, which of course is always skewed.

And again, regardless of how much media coverage there is or how overblown it is, it doesnt warrant the case to be thrown out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

He's been proven guilty.

---

THANK GOODNESS!!!

The news on my computer needs to be updated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean

I disagree. The media shoves it down our throats and decide what we want to hear. Kind of like MTV a few decades ago, they shoved that music down our throats until we liked it.

I never liked the idea of a jury. These are people who are not lawyers and never had experience with these cases before and are asked to decide the fate of someone they don't even know.

---

I was speaking more in a general sense. It's obvious that people enjoy situations like this, based on the types of television shows they watch. So, if broadcast news organizations want good ratings, they'll deliver what statistics say will get them those ratings. So, in a sense, I agree with you. But ultimately, I feel the public only gets what it asks for.

And I think a jury is the fairest way to go about things. You get people from all walks of life and ask them to use common sense.

I agree with foa. But personally, I think it's abhorrent, and disgusting, that we as humans derive satisfaction from events like this.

I haven't watched the trial, but I've read plenty about it, and discussed it with a good many people. Plainly put, the defense could've given any number of arguments (and did) to account for Peterson's behavior. Everyone KNOWS he did it, because of what he had to gain from it, but that alone is not enough to convict anyone. From the opinions I've read, one solitary piece of viable concrete evidence in conjunction with all of the circumstantial evidence would be enough to make this case not so controversial. But there's not, which is what makes it so hard to deal with, and why there have been THREE jury members who have been dismissed.

I think this is an interesting case for the simple fact that Peterson, who has no "smoking gun" in his case has been found guilty, while the OJ Simpson, who's circumstances were nearly identical DID have a smoking gun, and he was acquitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

I think this is an interesting case for the simple fact that Peterson, who has no "smoking gun" in his case has been found guilty, while the OJ Simpson, who's circumstances were nearly identical DID have a smoking gun, and he was acquitted.

---

Glad I'm not the only one. That sickened me, to see him go free. At least we didn't see a repeat of that in the Peterson case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

Regardless of what we think, though, he's been judged. As far as the media goes, those jurors were most likely kept from any and all forms of media during the trial, so it shouldnt have effected anything but the public's view of things, which of course is always skewed.

---

The television movie of this whole situation came out long before the trial took place, long before jury selection could take place. Only once the jury has been selected is the jury sequestered for the duration of the trial. There was plenty of time for the media to pollute the evidence of the case.

also, the snippets and bits and pieces people have seen and read of the trial? those come from the media and therefore cannot be wholly trusted. with the right "spin" you can make somebody say something diametrically opposite of what they actually said or intended. guess who invented "spin?" well, it was politicians actually, but the media dominates the practice now.

According to CNN, the prosecution had neither the murder weapon or the cause of death. They never found out how she died. They say she must've been murdered, but they don't know in what way. They don't know where she died, be it in the house, on the boat, or whatever. The prosecution's case: she was found in the water and Scott has a boat. I doubt even the DA in Law and Order could get a conviction with such a case, and she can prosecute anything. I for one, do think that Scott is guilty. However, I don't like that he was convicted with such evidence. If Lacy was found on the side of the highway, would he have been convicted for owning a car that was driven on the highway- all other lack of hard evidence standing?

Quote:

---

I disagree. The media shoves it down our throats and decide what we want to hear. Kind of like MTV a few decades ago, they shoved that music down our throats until we liked it.

---

Well, I dunno. If everyone just changed the channel (or, better yet, shut off their TV's) when this kind of stuff comes on, the ratings would reflect that, and the sponsors would start to take notice. As much as it seems like we're getting all this crap shoved down our throats, I think it's still our fault...well, it's the fault of whichever subset of the population is monitored for ratings purposes, anyway.

Zap! Zap! :mad2:

Quote:

---

I think the wife was far enough along so that she couldn't get an abortion legally. On top of that he was guilty as hell and his victimization was his own fault. What a douche.

---

DItto.

I think the death penalty is too severe. I don't see why he can't be sentenced to live in a max security prison. People want his execution for killing two people. Don't that seem just a little hypocritical? Sure, it was horrible, but still.

People and the media, I guess...

Don't worry about the death penalty. He will die in jail before that one happens given how the system in Cali is run.

If there is any sense then he will hopefully be proven innocent after an appeal because the evidence just is not there at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Graves

I think the death penalty is too severe. I don't see why he can't be sentenced to live in a max security prison. People want his execution for killing two people. Don't that seem just a little hypocritical? Sure, it was horrible, but still.

---

A pregnant woman and her unborn child were those two people. Anyone who would kill a mother-to-be and a fetus deserves to fry. I know, you probably think I'm being unsympathetic, but I'm only calling it as I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Don't worry about the death penalty. He will die in jail before that one happens given how the system in Cali is run.

---

Exactly. There are people who've been on death row for 20+ years in California.

And plus, the judge always has the option of lowering the death penalty to life in prison and even THAT decision won't take place for another month.

And then there's the appeal process, in which the defense could ask for a re-trial because of the excessive media coverage, the reaction to the verdict outside of the Redwood City courthouse, and issues with the evidence presented in the trial. Among other things.

In other words, it doesn't mean much. Yet.

Didn't he just get sentenced to death?

The death sentence means that you will probably just live life in jail and appeal until you die. The death sentence is a joke because the odds you will actually get executed are really low in most states. Cali only does 1 a year and they have 300+ on death row. All of whom are probably appealing their case(the death sentence is special in which you can constantly appeal).

Quote:

---

the death sentence is special in which you can constantly appeal

---

Hmm, that doesn't sound very effective, maybe they should have a limit to how many times a person can appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronhart

Hmm, that doesn't sound very effective, maybe they should have a limit to how many times a person can appeal.

---

That will never happen.Take a Sociology course to find out why.

Anyway, he did kill his wife too, according to the evidence. The "killed his unborn child" thing was most likely just a tack on tool in court from the fighting side, and believe it or not, I agree with it. An 8 month development of a child is pretty significant, especially considering that you killed the mother carrying it aswell.

I have no feeling on his punishment. He will most likely just die in jail as previously stated.

I don't agree with the death penalty, at all. The chance you are executing an innocent person is too great, and even if they are guilty, who are we to end their life?

I don't think the death penalty should be an option for cases based solely on circumstancial evidence. This case had no murder weapon; it didn't even have a cause of death. I agree that the circumstancial evidence was enough to vote guilty, but I don't think a case as flimsy as this one should invoke the death penalty. Innocent people have been executed in cases that were a lot stronger than this, after all. Life in a maximum security prison isn't fun and games, and at least gives the state the chance to right a wrongful conviction if such is the case down the line. I don't disagree with capital punishment, but I do think that the prosecution should have some hard, physical evidence backing them before they move for it.

I can't say that I feel any pity for this 'man' in any way, but I do feel immense sorrow for his parents. What a horrible thing this is for them.

I also can't say that I am against the death sentence. It IS very rarely carried out, especially in California. I would agree with those of you who want him to just serve a life sentence in jail, that would be fine, except jails these days are cakewalks, more or less. At any rate, I hope some large cellmate of his works him over. Repeatedly.

Quote:

---

I don't think the death penalty should be an option for cases based solely on circumstancial evidence. This case had no murder weapon;

---

I do agree with that, so they probably shouldn't have gone with the death penalty. (not that it is going to matter anyways)

Quote:

---

I don't agree with the death penalty, at all. The chance you are executing an innocent person is too great, and even if they are guilty, who are we to end their life?

---

If you have solid rock evidence (which you didn't have in this case) and the crime is bad enough, then I think the death penatly should be allowed. If they are just going to rot and die in prison, it would be a mercy to end their life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronhart

I do agree with that, so they probably shouldn't have gone with the death penalty. (not that it is going to matter anyways)


If you have solid rock evidence (which you didn't have in this case) and the crime is bad enough, then I think the death penatly should be allowed. If they are just going to rot and die in prison, it would be a mercy to end their life.

---

Do those worst people deserve that mercy?

Quote:

---

Do those worst people deserve that mercy?

---

The death is not painless, so they might not see it as a mercy, which is an advantage. Actually, if they made the death more painful depending on the crime. (you might think this is inhuman, but it could be a good deterrant. People would soon learn not to become mass murderers)
Living in jail for the rest of your life is a different type of mercy, one that they might appreciate until they have been there for a long time. We want to stop people from considering the crime beforehand, not after. (afterwards it is only a matter of how they should be killed (dying slowly in prison or fairly immediate death))
Having the death sentence has other reasons too. All the reasons I've come up with so far I'm going to number.
1. Less expensive.
2. If they are left in jail there is always the chance they might be able to escape, which gets more likely the longer they are there.
3. Quite possibly a Deterrant.
Just in case anyone skipped over my previous post, I am only for the death penalty if it is certain the crime was commited by this person. (Scott Peterson isn't really a good example)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

What a douche.

---

[Sierra Mist]Yeah...It's kind of like that.[/Sierra Mist]

Great one! :laugh:

Okay....just remember this is MY opinion...

He is guilty of adultery...that much is doubtless...but there is little or no evidence that HE killed her. And truly, I don't think we'll ever know for sure. I mean....he was tried, and prosecuted by the media ages ago.

So did he kill her? With what I understand.....I don't think so, as it can't really be proven....Do I think he did....? I dunno.