Community Chat

[Cakers3]

---

@vsm wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@vsm wrote:

---

@Goldengate8361 wrote:

In my opinion, life without parole is a harsher sentence. I am glad his death sentence was commuted; I am against the death penalty as a matter of principle and my values---for everyone no matter what the crime was that occurred.

---

Peterson disagrees with you.  To him, the death penalty is the harsher sentence.  That's why he's been appealing his death sentence all these years. Giving this double murderer the sentence he prefers is against my principles.  No one supports the death penalty in every murder case -- only in especially heinous and aggravated cases, like this one. To oppose the death penalty in every case  -- even in cases of extreme depravity, like this one -- strikes me as profoundly unjust.  One would have to believe that in no case can a victim's life ever be worth as much as her killer's.  If the law requires that Peterson's death sentence be commuted, so be it.  But surely that's nothing to be "glad" about.

---

@vsm   I am also against the death penalty but I am not "glad" it was commuted.  I am not in charge of the death penalty and I would accept the commutation not because of my belief but because it is how the system works.

I am also intrigued when people say that to be against the DP in all cases is unjust.

When do we decide when the DP is warranted and when it is not?

We all have our own bias and perceptions of crime and punishment.

As horrified I was about Laci and Connor, they murders didn't change my mind about the DP - not because I do not recognize the horror of it all but because I stand in my belief that the DP needs to applied equally across the board.

Either all lives deserve equitable and fair punishment or none at all.  To pick and choose which lives merit more severe punishment is what is unjust, imo.

My MIL was murdered.  I'll say no more.

---

Then your objection is not just to the death penalty, but to the criminal justice system itself.  Because that's what grand juries, trial juries, trial courts, and appellate courts do every day: they make judgments about who has or hasn't committed a particular crime, and whose crime does or doesn't deserve a particular sentence.  Such judgments lie at the very heart of justice and fairness.  The notion that we shouldn't punish someone who richly deserves it because there might have been an error in someone else's case is, quite simply, absurd. That said, I hope justice was done in your own family tragedy.

---

@vsm   Convictions are one part; the sentencing is another.

If the DP was abolished across the board, there would be no discussion regarding what juries etc. are obligated to do.

We kill people who kill people.  The cause of death in any DP case is homicide.

Whether one supports the DP fully, partially, or not at all is not the issue.

We punish people who are found guilty so I do not subscribe to your submission of the absurd.

We can agree to disagree about the DP; I have no problem with those who think the DP is justified always or sometimes.  I pass no moral judgment; I follow my own compass.

[Duckncover]

I hope it is really is without any chance of parole. I can't imagine how he lives with himself. Seems he is really pressing his luck trying for another trial. I saw a report that parole can be revisited in 10 or 20 years sometimes if you know how to work the system. His sorry hide needs to stay behind bars.

[Jacie]

IMO if you take lives in the manner he did, the death penalty should remain on the table.

[beckyb1012]

He is despicable.

Not sure why they keep getting rid of the comments on the other criminal in the news.  Not referring to Josh either.

[vsm]

@Cakers3  You're of course welcome to your point of view.  But to reduce the issue of the morality of the death penalty to the mantra "we kill people who kill people" is misleading in the extreme.

Even states that do not have the death penalty recognize that some homicides are justified. Every state that permits the death penalty reserves it for only the most heinous and depraved of premeditated murders, and no such state makes the death penalty mandatory in any case, no matter how inhumane and brutal the intentional murder may have been. If a person deliberately chooses to commit such a murder in a state where the law permits the jury and the judge to consider the death penalty as an available option, his decision to commit that murder anyway means that he runs the risk of forfeiting his own life for the life or lives he destroyed. What's more, unlike his victims, he will first be given the benefit of every constitutional protection, years of due process litigation, the gift of time to show remorse, and the opportunity to make peace with the fate he chose.

We can agree to disagree on the morality of the death penalty, but let's at least do so honestly.

[Venezia]

I often think that no one knows how s(he) would feel about these issues until it actually involves someone they love.

I'm sure there are those who would remain resolute, but for many, the details of the crime and the horror of what their loved one(s) went through, might demand the ultimate justice.

Another point is that if, in these cases, the perpetrator is put to death, it gives the family and friends closure.  No more endless years of it being dragged through the courts and the media.  That aspect of it must be totally soul-destroying for the rest of their lives.  They are also given a "life sentence" and they committed no crime.

(My opinion of Scott Peterson isn't printable.  His own sister says he's guilty and a monster.)

[LTT1]

@Kachina624 @Venezia @vsm @beckyb1012 @Duckncover 

On 12-16 a meetup group I am part of has scheduled a ZOOM meeting to discuss Scott Peterson case. 
I did not know very much about his personality because I did not follow the case that closely at the time.

I will come back to the boards here and let you know if I learn anything ... the topic of this group is "narcissism".