Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This guy who drowns his pregnant wife because he wants to make his life with his girl friend (the later was horrified by what Peterson did, it proves she was a poor judge of character), and then cynically leads the chase for the culprit, is I believe one of the most callous murderer ever and morally worse than dumb spree killers ...
I just read Peterson's wikipedia page and it seems to me, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that Peterson got convicted on much less evidence than OJ got off on.
I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but don't you have to actually come up with more to convict?
I think Peterson is guilty, but I think the death penalty in his case is a mistake.
There are too many unanswered questions for me. We don't really know how Lacy died. We just know her body was found underwater. I think the strains and tensions between married couples result in a different state of mind than say that of other crimes. As a juror, I would be very reluctant to impose the death penalty when one spouse kills the other.
This kind of a killing isn't all that rare and it seldom does result in a death sentence. You can read these kind of accounts in newspapers in virtually every state in this country. What made this case unusual was the disappearance, the lying, the discovery of the body underwater, and all the press the case got.
Peterson got a "hanging jury" and I wonder about the people who made this decision. They obviously didn't like all the lying he had done. However, lying isn't a capital offense. In California, they've also pretty much guaranteed that Peterson will live out his life on death row, since executions there are so rare. His appeals will be expensive and little will be accomplished.
I think the strains and tensions between married couples result in a different state of mind than say that of other crimes. As a juror, I would be very reluctant to impose the death penalty when one spouse kills the other.
The first time that you posted this idea, I nodded. It made some sense. Then as it percolated through my brain, I realized that I strongly disagree.
It is a special kind of betrayal when a spouse, parent or child murders (or tortures, or rapes.) This is worse, far worse IMO, than stranger or aquaintance killing. You are supposed to be able to trust them.
The tensions and heightened emotions that come with these relationships are real, to be sure; they must simply be ever more vigilantly guarded against. If that means working to change your own character, then do it! Or sever the tie. To give someone a pass on committing the ultimate betrayal because you get extra mad at those you vow to protect isn't going to help reduce that violence, for sure.
I think Peterson is guilty, but I think the death penalty in his case is a mistake.
I don't. He killed her as sure as the sun comes up every morning. He killed her because he didn't want to divorce her and pay alimony. He had no interest in being a father and no interest in the child he also killed when he killed her. He should pay with his life.
Quote:
There are too many unanswered questions for me. We don't really know how Lacy died. We just know her body was found underwater. I think the strains and tensions between married couples result in a different state of mind than say that of other crimes. As a juror, I would be very reluctant to impose the death penalty when one spouse kills the other.
Why? He didn't kill her because she abused and beat him and cheated on him for years. He killed her to be free and with another woman. She loved him and wanted the baby.
Quote:
This kind of a killing isn't all that rare and it seldom does result in a death sentence. You can read these kind of accounts in newspapers in virtually every state in this country. What made this case unusual was the disappearance, the lying, the discovery of the body underwater, and all the press the case got.
Peterson got a "hanging jury" and I wonder about the people who made this decision. They obviously didn't like all the lying he had done. However, lying isn't a capital offense. In California, they've also pretty much guaranteed that Peterson will live out his life on death row, since executions there are so rare. His appeals will be expensive and little will be accomplished.
This may be true but it's better than letting him go to do it again to some other woman.
I think Peterson is guilty, but I think the death penalty in his case is a mistake.
There are too many unanswered questions for me. We don't really know how Lacy died. We just know her body was found underwater. I think the strains and tensions between married couples result in a different state of mind than say that of other crimes. As a juror, I would be very reluctant to impose the death penalty when one spouse kills the other.
This kind of a killing isn't all that rare and it seldom does result in a death sentence. You can read these kind of accounts in newspapers in virtually every state in this country. What made this case unusual was the disappearance, the lying, the discovery of the body underwater, and all the press the case got.
Peterson got a "hanging jury" and I wonder about the people who made this decision. They obviously didn't like all the lying he had done. However, lying isn't a capital offense. In California, they've also pretty much guaranteed that Peterson will live out his life on death row, since executions there are so rare. His appeals will be expensive and little will be accomplished.
Well, when a woman too pregnant to even run away from her assailant is murdered by the father of the baby, people really take exception to that. There were a hundred other points at which the course of this disaster could have been changed: he could have gotten a divorce, a separation order, a vasectomy, and his stock would have dropped with Laci and the other Rochas but he would be free to be as big a ******* as he liked.
If he is not executed, it will actually be terribly unfait to the memory of his victim and the victim's family.
Oh but maybe the Californian taxpayer enjoys providing for a scum like that till the end of his natural life....
If he is not executed, it will actually be terribly unfait to the memory of his victim and the victim's family. Oh but maybe the Californian taxpayer enjoys providing for a scum like that till the end of his natural life....
Your comment shows just how little you know about California and the people who live there. In November, there was a measure on the ballot to abolish the death penalty in CA but it didn't pass. The DP still exists but death row inmates aren't being executed because the law affords them the right to appeal. Don't blame Californians, in general, for this. Blame the law of the land.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
