Why did Peterson get the death penalty?

davefoc · 16th March 2005, 01:35 PM

Why did Peterson get the death penalty?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ci_peterson_17

The case seemed a little outside the range of cases that get the death penalty to me, but I'm no expert.

Before the thing started I thought the death penalty was unlikely, but Peterson's attorney seemed to be coming across as an obnoxious buffoon and I wondered if the jury didn't feel a bit like that and when it came to a close call just extended their dislike of Geragos enough to push them into the death penalty decision.

Is California law explicit enough about when to invoke the death penalty that after the facts were determined in this case the invocation of the death penalty just followed.

phildonnia · 16th March 2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
Is California law explicit enough about when to invoke the death penalty that after the facts were determined in this case the invocation of the death penalty just followed.

There are explicit "aggravating factors". At least one must be found to get the death penalty. A partial list of aggravating factors:

Conspiracy
by arson
peace officer victim
lying in wait
multiple homicide
contract killing

etc.

This case qualified as a "multiple homicide". It might also be a "lying in wait", but that will probably never be known.

davefoc · 16th March 2005, 03:08 PM

Thanks for your answer Phildonnia,
I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has.

In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty.

But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law?

For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?

Ed · 16th March 2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
Thanks for your answer Phildonnia,
I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has.

In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty.

But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law?

For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?

I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.

Rob Lister · 16th March 2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
Thanks for your answer Phildonnia,
I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has.

In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty.

But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law?

For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?

The same jury that found him guilty of capital murder (death penalty eligible) could have also (but did not) recommended a life sentence. The judge can overturn the death recommendation but can't overturn a life recommendation.

hgc · 16th March 2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.

No doubt about it - that did him in. The tapes of his lovesick peadings with Amber Frye were nausea inducing. I think Amber Frye and the tapes were the nail in the coffin. Impossible to have any sympathy after that.

Tmy · 16th March 2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
Why did Peterson get the death penalty?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ci_peterson_17

The case seemed a little outside the range of cases that get the death penalty to me, but I'm no expert.

Killing your wife and unborn kid, in cold blood, doesnt fall under a death penalty case!?!? geez what do you have to do then? Commit mass genocide.

nightwind · 16th March 2005, 08:59 PM

I agree that he should not have gotten the death penalty in this case. The reason being that there is a very real chance that he did not commit the crime whether we choose to consider it or not.

No weapon, no forensic evidence except for a strand of hair that was explained, no witnesses to arguments between the two, no evidence of planning of a murder, no reasonable motive for murder. There were witnesses that saw Lacy walking her dog.

The thing that convicted him is that he was hated because he was an adulterer. The Frey tapes, deamonized him even more, and probably should never have been let in. Peterson also did some stupid things that made himself look guilty even though he might not have been. He just ran too long unlawyered, which helped to do him in. The judge also allowed a lot of speculation without fact, and did not do a very good job in controlling the case.

Then add the media demonizing him 24/7, and his goose was cooked.

This trial kind of reminded me what a Salem witchcraft trial might have been like.

Now, I don't know if he did it or not, but I will say that I believe that there is just a good of a chance that he did not as if he did.

So on that basis, I do not believe that he should be put to death. And really believe the death penalty should probably be done away with, because the chance of mistakes is great. Juries a lot of time do not really know, as in the Peterson case, and they just base judgement on facial expression, how the the person walks, etc.

Again, he may have done it, but he sure didn't get a fair trial.

Ed · 17th March 2005, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nightwind
I agree that he should not have gotten the death penalty in this case. The reason being that there is a very real chance that he did not commit the crime whether we choose to consider it or not.

That is reasonable doubt and the jury did not have any. You can hardly sit here, typing deathless prose, and suggest that you in any way have a small fraction of the knowledge that the jury acquired over the months of testimony, can you?

hgc · 17th March 2005, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
That is reasonable doubt and the jury did not have any. You can hardly sit here, typing deathless prose, and suggest that you in any way have a small fraction of the knowledge that the jury acquired over the months of testimony, can you?

I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons.

Kodiak · 17th March 2005, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Killing your wife and unborn kid, in cold blood, doesnt fall under a death penalty case!?!? geez what do you have to do then? Commit mass genocide.

Even mass genocide would not break the threshold for many anti-death penalty activists.

Kodiak · 17th March 2005, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons.

All juries are not created equal.

Ed · 17th March 2005, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons.

Absolutely. We have a system and you can't pick and choose based on whether you disagree with the sentence. That said, I do have a problem with a jury reviewing months of testimony in one hour.

I also have a problem with the Ito Circus but you will note that the MJ judge seems to have learned from that unfortunate experience and appears to be runnig a tighter ship, or shall I say tight ship.

If you are suggesting that there was a miscarriage of justice in the Peterson case, I suspect that will come out over the coming decades as he appeals.

Ed · 17th March 2005, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kodiak
All juries are not created equal.

Right, and it appears that they were a racist lot but they erred on the side of mercy and that is preferable to the opposite.

nightwind · 17th March 2005, 04:57 PM

Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty.

Hope this is a more appropriate response.

Kodiak · 18th March 2005, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nightwind
Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty.

Hope this is a more appropriate response.

Since you were not on the jury, I can understand your position.

American · 18th March 2005, 06:42 AM

Because he's a black man.

aerocontrols · 18th March 2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nightwind
Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty.

Hope this is a more appropriate response.

Based on your first response, it appears that you really don't think he should have been convicted at all.

RandFan · 18th March 2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.

Bingo, and a good reason to oppose the death penalty. It is simply administered in an unfair and uneven matter. I'm still pro-death penalty but I'm loosing faith in its application.

I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. However, had I been on his jury I would have probably voted to acquit and I certainly would not have voted for the death penalty even though I think the a-hole should be drawn and quartered. The evidence was iffy at best for conviction. I wouldn't send anyone to death row that didn't have strong forensic evidence that they were guilty. Eye witness testimony would unlikely fly for me. It is too unreliable.

hammegk · 18th March 2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Bingo, and a good reason to oppose the death penalty. It is simply administered in an unfair and uneven matter. I'm still pro-death penalty but I'm loosing faith in its application.

Well said.

Quote:

I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. However, had I been on his jury I would have probably voted to acquit and I certainly would not have voted for the death penalty ..... The evidence was iffy at best for conviction. I wouldn't send anyone to death row that didn't have strong forensic evidence that they were guilty. Eye witness testimony would unlikely fly for me. It is too unreliable.

I have no idea of his guilt, but don't think I'd have convicted him on the news as I saw it.

DNA forensic evidence is also beginning to worry me. Frame-ups seem a bit too easy ... a hair follicle, saliva, etc ... seem too easy to plant. And Peterson didn't even that against him.

Finally, why would anyone -- guilty or innocent -- who might be in the slightest suspicion of a major crime ever make any comment to police, allow them in the home, or intereact in any way without a lawyer present?

Tmy · 18th March 2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by American
Because he's a black man.

Naw. He got death cause he killed a white women.

I guess Robert Blake got off cause it was a white jury, and they woudlnt convict their own.

16th March 2005, 01:35 PM	#1
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,255	Why did Peterson get the death penalty? Why did Peterson get the death penalty? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ci_peterson_17 The case seemed a little outside the range of cases that get the death penalty to me, but I'm no expert. Before the thing started I thought the death penalty was unlikely, but Peterson's attorney seemed to be coming across as an obnoxious buffoon and I wondered if the jury didn't feel a bit like that and when it came to a close call just extended their dislike of Geragos enough to push them into the death penalty decision. Is California law explicit enough about when to invoke the death penalty that after the facts were determined in this case the invocation of the death penalty just followed.

16th March 2005, 01:43 PM	#2
phildonnia Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sac'to CA Posts: 2,339	Re: Why did Peterson get the death penalty? Quote: Originally posted by davefoc Is California law explicit enough about when to invoke the death penalty that after the facts were determined in this case the invocation of the death penalty just followed. There are explicit "aggravating factors". At least one must be found to get the death penalty. A partial list of aggravating factors: Conspiracy by arson peace officer victim lying in wait multiple homicide contract killing etc. This case qualified as a "multiple homicide". It might also be a "lying in wait", but that will probably never be known.

16th March 2005, 04:27 PM	#4
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by davefoc Thanks for your answer Phildonnia, I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has. In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty. But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law? For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances? I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

16th March 2005, 04:56 PM	#6
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,008	Quote: Originally posted by Ed I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury. No doubt about it - that did him in. The tapes of his lovesick peadings with Amber Frye were nausea inducing. I think Amber Frye and the tapes were the nail in the coffin. Impossible to have any sympathy after that.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

16th March 2005, 08:13 PM	#7
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Re: Why did Peterson get the death penalty? Quote: Originally posted by davefoc Why did Peterson get the death penalty? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ci_peterson_17 The case seemed a little outside the range of cases that get the death penalty to me, but I'm no expert. Killing your wife and unborn kid, in cold blood, doesnt fall under a death penalty case!?!? geez what do you have to do then? Commit mass genocide.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

16th March 2005, 03:08 PM	#3
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,255	Thanks for your answer Phildonnia, I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has. In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty. But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law? For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances?

16th March 2005, 04:33 PM	#5
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by davefoc Thanks for your answer Phildonnia, I was aware of the idea of special circumstances, my question really went more to how much leeway the jury has. In the guilt phase they determine if the defendant has committed the acts that he is accused of and if they determine he has they apply the law as explained by the judge and find the guy guilty. But during the penalty phase is there more wiggle room? Could two different juries find that exactly the same facts had occurred and yet produce two different decisions that are both consistent with the law? For instance, in this case suppose the jury found the special circumstances that you described to be applicable would then the death penalty be inevitable or could they still balance this with what they see as mitigating facts? What does the law say about what the basis for a death penalty decision should be beyond requiring at least one of the special circumstances? The same jury that found him guilty of capital murder (death penalty eligible) could have also (but did not) recommended a life sentence. The judge can overturn the death recommendation but can't overturn a life recommendation.

16th March 2005, 08:59 PM	#8
nightwind Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 398	Death penalty I agree that he should not have gotten the death penalty in this case. The reason being that there is a very real chance that he did not commit the crime whether we choose to consider it or not. No weapon, no forensic evidence except for a strand of hair that was explained, no witnesses to arguments between the two, no evidence of planning of a murder, no reasonable motive for murder. There were witnesses that saw Lacy walking her dog. The thing that convicted him is that he was hated because he was an adulterer. The Frey tapes, deamonized him even more, and probably should never have been let in. Peterson also did some stupid things that made himself look guilty even though he might not have been. He just ran too long unlawyered, which helped to do him in. The judge also allowed a lot of speculation without fact, and did not do a very good job in controlling the case. Then add the media demonizing him 24/7, and his goose was cooked. This trial kind of reminded me what a Salem witchcraft trial might have been like. Now, I don't know if he did it or not, but I will say that I believe that there is just a good of a chance that he did not as if he did. So on that basis, I do not believe that he should be put to death. And really believe the death penalty should probably be done away with, because the chance of mistakes is great. Juries a lot of time do not really know, as in the Peterson case, and they just base judgement on facial expression, how the the person walks, etc. Again, he may have done it, but he sure didn't get a fair trial.
	__________________ "A Wise Man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can see from the top of a mountain" "Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious." - Alan Minter, Boxer

17th March 2005, 04:33 AM	#9
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Re: Death penalty Quote: Originally posted by nightwind I agree that he should not have gotten the death penalty in this case. The reason being that there is a very real chance that he did not commit the crime whether we choose to consider it or not. That is reasonable doubt and the jury did not have any. You can hardly sit here, typing deathless prose, and suggest that you in any way have a small fraction of the knowledge that the jury acquired over the months of testimony, can you?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

17th March 2005, 04:42 AM	#10
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,008	Re: Re: Death penalty Quote: Originally posted by Ed That is reasonable doubt and the jury did not have any. You can hardly sit here, typing deathless prose, and suggest that you in any way have a small fraction of the knowledge that the jury acquired over the months of testimony, can you? I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

17th March 2005, 04:49 AM	#11
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Re: Re: Why did Peterson get the death penalty? Quote: Originally posted by Tmy Killing your wife and unborn kid, in cold blood, doesnt fall under a death penalty case!?!? geez what do you have to do then? Commit mass genocide. Even mass genocide would not break the threshold for many anti-death penalty activists.
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

17th March 2005, 04:51 AM	#12
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Re: Re: Re: Death penalty Quote: Originally posted by hgc I assume you backed the OJ jury's verdict for the same reasons. All juries are not created equal.
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

17th March 2005, 04:53 AM	#14
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Re: Re: Re: Re: Death penalty Quote: Originally posted by Kodiak All juries are not created equal. Right, and it appears that they were a racist lot but they erred on the side of mercy and that is preferable to the opposite.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

17th March 2005, 04:57 PM	#15
nightwind Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 398	Peterson Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty. Hope this is a more appropriate response.
	__________________ "A Wise Man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can see from the top of a mountain" "Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious." - Alan Minter, Boxer

18th March 2005, 04:18 AM	#16
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Re: Peterson Quote: Originally posted by nightwind Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty. Hope this is a more appropriate response. Since you were not on the jury, I can understand your position.
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

18th March 2005, 06:42 AM	#17
American Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: CA Posts: 3,842	Because he's a black man.

18th March 2005, 06:50 AM	#18
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	Quote: Originally posted by nightwind Based upon the evidence that I was aware of in the case, I don't believe that Peterson should have gotten the death penalty. Hope this is a more appropriate response. Based on your first response, it appears that you really don't think he should have been convicted at all.
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

18th March 2005, 07:19 AM	#19
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,212	Quote: Originally posted by Ed I think Scott Peterson simply repelled the jury. Bingo, and a good reason to oppose the death penalty. It is simply administered in an unfair and uneven matter. I'm still pro-death penalty but I'm loosing faith in its application. I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. However, had I been on his jury I would have probably voted to acquit and I certainly would not have voted for the death penalty even though I think the a-hole should be drawn and quartered. The evidence was iffy at best for conviction. I wouldn't send anyone to death row that didn't have strong forensic evidence that they were guilty. Eye witness testimony would unlikely fly for me. It is too unreliable.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

18th March 2005, 08:17 AM	#20
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Quote: Originally posted by RandFan Bingo, and a good reason to oppose the death penalty. It is simply administered in an unfair and uneven matter. I'm still pro-death penalty but I'm loosing faith in its application. Well said. Quote: I don't like Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty. However, had I been on his jury I would have probably voted to acquit and I certainly would not have voted for the death penalty ..... The evidence was iffy at best for conviction. I wouldn't send anyone to death row that didn't have strong forensic evidence that they were guilty. Eye witness testimony would unlikely fly for me. It is too unreliable. I have no idea of his guilt, but don't think I'd have convicted him on the news as I saw it. DNA forensic evidence is also beginning to worry me. Frame-ups seem a bit too easy ... a hair follicle, saliva, etc ... seem too easy to plant. And Peterson didn't even that against him. Finally, why would anyone -- guilty or innocent -- who might be in the slightest suspicion of a major crime ever make any comment to police, allow them in the home, or intereact in any way without a lawyer present?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

18th March 2005, 03:17 PM	#21
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Quote: Originally posted by American Because he's a black man. Naw. He got death cause he killed a white women. I guess Robert Blake got off cause it was a white jury, and they woudlnt convict their own.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek