Should Scott Peterson be executed?

[Flatlander]

Scott Peterson has received the death penalty after being found guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. Do you think he should die for his crime? Why or why not?

Reference Article.

 

[Satt]

If convicted, I think people should be killed exactly the way they killed the original victim. So how did he kill his wife? Just let her family do that to him. He he. :mp5:

 

[kelly keltner]

lt's tie a 100 lb anchor to his neck and see if he can swim time.


kk

 

[michaeledward]

The state should not be in the business of killing people. Even in this case, it is wrong for the state to take a life.

But, this is about as good of an argument there is for capitol punishment.

Mike

 

[kelly keltner]

I'm curious why you believe it is wrong for the state to take a life. I'm not asking in a durogatory or flaming manner. Just curious as to your reasoning

kk

 

[jfarnsworth]

As soon as the hammer comes down they should take the criminals to another room and be done with them on the spot! He should have been executed a long time ago. I'm glad they finally came to a conclusion.
artyon:

 

[Xequat]

The state should not be in the business of killing people. Even in this case, it is wrong for the state to take a life.

But, this is about as good of an argument there is for capitol punishment.

Mike

I'm no lawyer, but didn't the jury decide to execute him? I only got the highlights and I'm not sure exactly how all of that courtroom stuff works, but I believe that the twelve jurors have to decide whether death is appropriate. I understand what you're saying about the state deciding whether or not to kill someone and that's a good argument, so I'm not even going to try to rebutt it right now, but I will say that I agree with Satt. Let the punishment fit the crime and if the killer thought it was OK to kill someone a certain way, then let it be done to him/her as well. It's not cruel or unusual in that case, either.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm curious why you believe it is wrong for the state to take a life. I'm not asking in a durogatory or flaming manner. Just curious as to your reasoning

The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.

The state should act in a way that completely fulfills these interests, but proceeds no further.

George Will (notice the right wing name dropping here) has said there are two ways to 'punish' a member of society - loss of property, loss of freedom. We see these to methods of punishment when society imposes a fine for a traffic violation (loss of property) or a siezure (in some drug cases, for example). As well as when society incarcerates a law-breaker.

Capital punishment does not fit into either of these catogories.

The argument can be made that Capital Punishment is the most extreme case of 'loss of freedom'. This argument would be valid if incarceration without parole was not a possible alternative. If we could not guarantee a person could be held for his entire life in custody, then executing that person would be a rational alternative. I believe our society has a prison system that can successfully keep a person incarcerated for his or her natural life.

Capital punishment, in the United States, is about revenge; not justice.


Thank you for listening.

Mike

 

[kenpo tiger]

The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.

The state should act in a way that completely fulfills these interests, but proceeds no further.

George Will (notice the right wing name dropping here) has said there are two ways to 'punish' a member of society - loss of property, loss of freedom. We see these to methods of punishment when society imposes a fine for a traffic violation (loss of property) or a siezure (in some drug cases, for example). As well as when society incarcerates a law-breaker.

Capital punishment does not fit into either of these catogories.

The argument can be made that Capital Punishment is the most extreme case of 'loss of freedom'. This argument would be valid if incarceration without parole was not a possible alternative. If we could not guarantee a person could be held for his entire life in custody, then executing that person would be a rational alternative. I believe our society has a prison system that can successfully keep a person incarcerated for his or her natural life.

Capital punishment, in the United States, is about revenge; not justice.


Thank you for listening.

Mike

MichaelEdward,
Sorry for this but: what about Laci Peterson's loss of freedom - and that of her unborn child?

 

[Tgace]

Im for the death penalty. But Im against it in cases built on circumstantial evidence. If there was a witness or solid physical evidence.....I think Peterson did do it, but if you are going to exact the ultimate punishment, I think there should be some evidentiary hurdles that should be overcome.

 

[mj_lover]

personally, i'm against the death penalty. My reasoning is, if you or the state, or whatever kills somebody, you are also a murderer. But, i do not agree with going lighty on such criminals, and i do belive the desert needs a good sweeping, that would be a nice little job for them. I'm sure there are many more options than can be explored besides the death penalty. I just don't like the idea of a gov't/state sinking to the level of killers.

just my 2c

 

[rmcrobertson]

The only good arguments one has read or heard in favor of capital punishment are a) a weirdie by C.S. Lewis, who argues that NOT to execute a guilty person is a denial of their humanity, their fundamental freedom of moral choice, and b) a pregnant friend, who said, "Well, as an expectant mom, there are some people I just don't want on the planet," and c) Hannibal Lecter, who said, "A civilized society would either execute me or give me my books."

Then too, there are many--Ollie North and Henry Kissinger and Agusto Pinochet come to mind immediately--with a great deal of innocent blood on their hands who will probably die safe in their beds. So if one wishes to get all bent about the unborn child issue....

Personally, one will support capital punishment when it brings back the dead. Otherwise--as mentioned--it's just revenge.

 

[TigerWoman]

What one of the jurors said today made me think. He said this was about as personal as you can get or something to that effect. Scott Peterson should have been the one to protect his wife and son, not murder them. This was no stranger that killed them. What kind of man could kill his son, and even if he felt nothing for his wife, didn't he once love her? And then to put on that act afterwards. Does he deserve to live at all? Would he ever suffer what he did in prison? No, not even by lethal injection. But he has knowingly given up his freedom and his life in my opinion. TW

 

[Tgace]

What's with this "one" thing???

 

[MA-Caver]

Some murders should not be punished via death. Others ... without a doubt. Circumstances leading to the murder should be extensively examined and weighed.
Two people get into a fight and one kills the other then life or 20 years.
Someone who plots and kills for money or for the other's spouse... life.
Bank robbery and a security guard or innocent bystander is killed... life or 20.
Another type of bank robbery, innocents are killed just for the sake of killing them. Definitely death.
A child is beaten/abused to death... death penalty.
Pregnant mother (regardless which term); death.
Murdering in a jealous rage, life or 20.
A woman defending herself from rape or abuse and kills her attacker/husband... 10-15 or less...
And so on...
Like I said: circumstances involving the murder and why.
Scott Peterson and the more recent Mark Hacking... definitely the death penalty. Mainly because they plotted and murdered their respective spouses for the sake that they didn't want to be with them anymore. Laci was pregnant and thus two lives were taken. Hacking most likely would've divorced her husband but he killed her and threw her in the garbage and then pretended (like Scott P.) that he was sooo worried about her that she might have been kidnapped or worse.
In court both of these men showed no remorse, ala OJ Simpson.
Punishment should fit the crime especially when the crime is as hideous as these two.

The state assumes the responsibility for the greater good of the whole. Murderers have been released before to kill again. Sometimes a life in prison just doesn't do the supposed rehabilitation that it's says it would do. Some people just don't care.
What irks me is the length of time a convicted (without a doubt) murderer spends on death row. Ted Bundy if I recall spent more than 13 years before being put to death. Why? Evidence weighed against him definitely proved he was guilty. Same with Jeffery Dahmler and others.
I say two years being the maximum length for waiting for execution. This will make Lawyers get off their butts and investigate harder to prove their clients innocent.
Yes, people have been found innocent of a crime they were convicted of via DNA technology and other means... but some have spent years behind bars needlessly because people were not actively pursuing the case and DA's have the reputation of wanting to convict as fast as possible with whatever evidence they have.
It's another sticky in life.. but the justice system needs a face-lift where investigations need to go beyond the "without-a-doubt". There should be no question what-so-ever.
A real sticky...

 

[michaeledward]

MichaelEdward,
Sorry for this but: what about Laci Peterson's loss of freedom - and that of her unborn child?

Both are tragic and criminal. But those acts were not the actions of the state.

The person who committed those crimes will be punished by the State. The state must be accountable and answerable for its actions. If the state chooses to terminate the life of a criminal, when other, equally effective methods of punishment are available, it crosses an ethical line that I believe should not be crossed.

There are times when the state does need to sanction killing, those times exist only when less drastic methods are not feasible (such as in warfare).

 

[DeLamar.J]

If he really did what they say he did then yes. Just because the courtroom comes to a conclusion does not mean its the right one.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not quite sure that death is a suitable punishment in this case. If I was positive that hell exsists and Peterson would suffer an eternity, then maybe. Otherwise ending his life lets him off easy. He should have to rot in jail with no rope on his soap. I also wouldn't mind seeing a "torture sentacing" term for guys like this and others who have no remorse for their actions and who don't value the life of innocent people. Some people should suffer worse than jail time or death, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Both are tragic and criminal. But those acts were not the actions of the state.

The person who committed those crimes will be punished by the State. The state must be accountable and answerable for its actions. If the state chooses to terminate the life of a criminal, when other, equally effective methods of punishment are available, it crosses an ethical line that I believe should not be crossed.

There are times when the state does need to sanction killing, those times exist only when less drastic methods are not feasible (such as in warfare).

I'm usually right on the "those darned liberals" boat with you Michael, but not on this item. For this particular case, I don't believe there was the weight of evidence necesary to support the death penalty: We have multiple offense thugs in California prisons who were caught on tape killing multiple victims, caught with the gun that did the crime, confessed to the crime, and showed no remorse for their deeds. For them, I think we are wasting resources better spent by removing them from the gene pool. One can, in my eyes, refute their right to inhale based on their actions.

Remember Lawrence Singleton? Raped and cut the hands off of a 14 year old girl, then left her for dead in a field. She crawled (on stumps, mind you) through fields and sewers to get herself some help (had those mechanical claws for a while...may have different prosthetics now). He did some time, got out with much public ado, and went right back to a life of crime, committing heinous acts against young victims. Granted, nobody actually died in the famous case that sent him to prison (though apparently some did later). Rather, she (the young woman he tortured and maimed) went through all of the trials and trauma of one being murdered, but had the undesirable distinction of living though it to try and piece together some semblance of normalcy afterwards.

I would have stood in line to pull the switch on Singleton if he had been given the death penalty, but we stopped penalizing rape with execution when it was rightly shown that people of color from lower SES's were being convicted and executed disproportionately more than whites. Until that issue is resolved and/or controlled for (which may be an impossibility), I do believe the state has an obligation to double and triple check it's use of the death penalty. That having been said, Singleton was white, and should have died for his crimes (strong trail of substantial evidence). Peterson is white, and should spend his days rotting in a cell, having nightmares about dropping the soap in the shower, and wondering when his next severe beating will come about for being the convicted killer of an unborn baby (weak trail of not-very-substantial evidence).

This judgement is made having not been on the jury, and not having been privvy to all of the details they had exposure to. If I was on the jury, I might be ready to stand in line to pull the switch on him, as well.

Dave

 

[BlackCatBonz]

The function of the state is to provide rules that allow society to run smoothly. If a member of the society commits an infraction against the rules society has established, it is within the society's interests to a) punish the offender, and b) prohibit a recurrence of the infraction.

a) yes he is being punished
b) i definitely think they are prohibiting a recurrence of the infraction

this sentence was laid out by a jury of his "peers". people like you and me. i think they heard sufficient evidence, that made them believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that he commited this crime.
they were interviewing the juror's on CNN, and some of them mentioned that it took hearing everything, and acting on their own judgement, without pressure from the public opinion, or media, to come to their decision.
i dont think it would be easy to have the life of someone held in my grasp......i dont think it was easy for them, but as a society we use this method, however archaic it is, to dole out punishment as we see fit.
i wouldnt classify it as revenge killing either.......punishment is about being a deterrent. if you kill someone, and know when you get caught that you will be killed, it makes SOME people stop and think.

shawn