The US legal system is a crock of shit. Peterson, who was found guilty only because of circumstansal evidence is sentenced to death, and Blake who's evidence is also only circumstansal, is a free man.
I thought it was bullshit that he got a guilty charge without substantial evidence in the first place. I still think he committed the murders, but if there's no evidence to support that as a fact, then it's just a personal opinion and not a proven fact.
I don't care... he was convicted based off of the opinion of the court. It may be messed up, but it's only what almost everyone in America thinks of him. Now if we can only get him to admit it.
as much as I hate to say it...im genuinely glad. He's an obvious sociopath who has no remorse for anything. He disgusts me and I pray to the Lord that he will be saved...however it is my opinion that he will rot in hell.
How can you expect him to have remorse when there's still a good chance he didn't do it? I think he did, but thats my personal opinion. IMO, there isn't a shred of decent evidence to prove his guilt, so its still quite possible he didnt do it
How can you expect him to have remorse when there's still a good chance he didn't do it? I think he did, but thats my personal opinion. IMO, there isn't a shred of decent evidence to prove his guilt, so its still quite possible he didnt do it [/b][/quote] No, there is not a smoking gun... but, tell me -- what can you do to prove his innocence? The whole thing of a court system is having two sides arguing their points. The defense couldn't muster a single good point. The prosecution used Scott Peterson's actions as their primary form of "proof". The question is, what "evidence" could they give that would prove he did it? Unless you want them to manufacture evidence, that is. The jury was left to go off of what both sides argued, the actions of Scott Peterson, etc. The only real evidence in the case was everything Amber Fry (probably spelled her last name wrong... oh well) could give. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think you'd exactly be all calm and collected with your wife missing and that you'd just keep going on a relationship with your mistress. The jury had to go on gut instinct, basically. I think they made the right choice. The judge was the one giving the sentencing, not the jury -- he's the one that chose death for Peterson, and he too was going on what both sides presented. The jury may have recommended it, but it was completely the judge's decision.
Spending Life In Prison = 100x worse than getting the death penalty. I mean, the guy is only 30. 40-50 years in jail is hell.
Following opinion based on if he is guilty(IMO he is): ####ing monster...kills wife and kid on ####in' Christmas Eve.... there.
No, there is not a smoking gun... but, tell me -- what can you do to prove his innocence? [/b][/quote] I don't know about you, but I operate under the belief of "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty because we can't prove he's innocent or guilty". All it was was circumstantial evidence. Vague circumstancial evidence. I still believe he did it, but seeing that the prosecution couldn't come up with any evidence whatsoever of his involvement in their murders, they should've set him free. You wouldn't believe the number of people who are sent to death row who did absolutely nothing. Everyone has to point the finger at someone, and oftenly it's the ones who aren't guilty. This isn't so much a "Scott Petersen didn't do it" outcry as it's a "look at another inefficiency of the American justice system" outcry.
Somehow I knew someone was going to bring that up -- that was my own fault . So, let me clarify: Yes, that is the situation we go under in the United States court system. And, he started as innocent, accordingly. But, when the information came out, there was nothing to continue to prove his innocence. Once the case is all said and done, he's no longer "innocent" unless the jury decides that he is... and, obviously, the jury decided that he was not innocent. Was there a smoking gun? No. But the defense put up a piss poor case. The prosecution, on the other hand, did everything they could with the "evidence" they had to make a rather incriminating case against Scott Peterson. Scott didn't exactly help matters himself, either, when he tried to leave, sell his deceased wife's car, and when Amber Frey came out and admitted they were having an affair. If your entire logic of a court system relies upon a smoking gun, then I hope you're on a jury if I'm ever being prosecuted You pretty much defeat your own arguement, too: "I still believe he did it," implies that you would have been one of the jury members to vote for guilty -- so, tell me, how can you hold it against the jury for doing exactly what you would have done? Guess it's one of those "do as I say, not as I do" kind of things, eh? All I'm saying is he got what he deserved. Was there a smoking gun? No. Was there a substancial amount of evidence -- even if not any actual, physical evidence -- to support their claims. Yes. You don't exactly drastically change your appearance and try to flee from your trial when you're innocent. Am I saying that he should be put to death? I don't know, that's the judge's choice. Am I saying the court system is perfect? No. Am I saying that there aren't errors made with people on death row? Of course not (speaking of which, I love "The Life Of David Gale"... just thought I'd throw that one in there ). But I think the court systems worked in this case.
I thought something was amiss when you said that, just wanted to get a clarification. I don't necessarily need a smoking gun, but there is forensic evidence, eyewitness reports, just any type of hard evidence. I hate verdicts based on circumstantial evidence. And despite what you said, no, I wouldn't have voted "guilty" if I was on the jury. The main part of being a juror is putting personal feelings aside and assessing which side, defense or prosecution, gave the best impression. I would've based my decision on whichever side had compelling evidence to prove or disprove the charge. Referring back to my "innocent until proven guilty" stance; if the prosecution didn't come up with any cold, hard evidence, I would've voted "not guilty". We just see it differently. I think that if you're going to sentence a man to death, you better bring some good evidence to back it up. Not speculation and special circumstances that could merely be coincidences. That's just my liberal view on it.
Eh, I don't know. I don't exactly have faith in the American justice system.. And remember, there have been many people on death row that have been proven innocent and set free. So yeah. Anyways, they'll appeal and appeal to the courts. He'll be about 50 or 60 before he'll be executed, probably.
Nah, he won't be executed. There's around 600 people in front of him in line on death row in California, and the state has executed 10 people since 1992. He'll die of natural causes before his turn to get executed comes around