It was bad enough that they found Scott Peterson guilty even though there was absolutley no physical evidence to prove his guilt. Reasonable doubt means that the jury must find him not guilty, and in this gase. there was a huge shadow of doubt. To make matters worse, they just sentenced him to death. There's no DNA evidence or a confession to link him 100% to the murders. The only evidence they had was circumstansial....Scott did this, so it must mean he killed her. Bullshit. Now, the jury has chosen to put someone to death who is quite possibly innocent. The legal system has completley failed to do its job in this case, and its shit like this that makes me ashamed to be an american
Newsflash : There Is No Constitution They say you have freedom of speech, but can you really say anything and not get in trouble?
Echoed. I think Life without Parole would have been way better, seeing as how there was no physical evidence to prove it. Although, the story about her body washing up where he fishes is... well, fishy.
I heard about this earlier. People are so fucked up, He might not have even done this but yeah, lets kill him for something we have no proof he did. We don't know he did it but since we can't find out who did, He's dying. Way to go American legal system.
Those of you who said he deserves it, can you not read? There is not a shred of physical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. In order for someone to be convicted of any crime, the jury must decide if the prosecution has proved 100% without doubt that the defendant is guilty. The prosecution proved that they can pull circumstansial evidence out of their ass to wrongly accuse someone, and the jury bought it. The entire Peterson case has made a mockery of the US legal system. There was no evidence to prove Peterson is guilty, yet they sentence him to death. There was DNA evidence against OJ proving he was a murderer, but he was found not guilty. Until the prosecution can do its job properly, Peterson doesn't deserve to spend another day in jail.
The official sentencing isn't until February 25, so this may be overruled. Judge Delucchi has the discretion under California law to disregard the jury’s recommendation.
He can only reduce the sentence though, so even then it'd be Life without parole, which is what I wanted, but if Scott is indeed innocent, it's still a fucking travesty.
I'm against the death penalty, life in prison would be much better. And while there was no hard evidence, the fact that Peterson showed little emotion during his trial and apparently didn't seem to concerned when his wife went missing is a bit odd. Also, I may be mistaken, but didn't he also abuse her?
Echo...echo...echo... My opposition to the death penalty notwithstanding, I think that the case against Scott Peterson was inconclusive. "Don't let sympathy be a factor..." Load of bullshit, if you ask me. You show an autopsy picture of the alleged victim, that's enough to get anyone emotional.
i pretty much agree with todd on this one. there was no evidence at all and if they execute him, then later on find out he didnt do it, how pissed would everyone be? if you ask me, i think there should be a law stricter law on the death penalty. instead of having a bunch of random, biased people vote on someones life, there has to be solid evidence. that would be a lot less regretable than killing someone then later finding out it wasnt them. it kind of reminds me of a man who was put in jail for maybe 20 years and then they found out he really didnt do the crime he committed. if they sentenced him to death, they would have to live with the guilt of killing an innocent person.
i am against death penalty too for reasons that pyromaniak expressed, but for the murderes i would make prison into Hell. or some program where they would have to feel the pain of their victim and their families to the max, that's actually a torture. but to some child rape murderer, serial perverted killer, they deserve to feel what they did magnified from the point of victim. that may come with virtual reality. god knows. what is the best punishment for guys like that?= talking about people who actually did the crime, i do find it strange that Petersons emotional response was so low as omar said. but if there is no evidence to convict him, he shouldnt be sentenced guilty. for cases like these it would help if they had expert jury then random citizens who can be swayed by either persecution or defence. i think jury also would have to live with the decision to let potially guilty murderer walk the streets and do it again.
The people who vote have to make their decision on solid evidence. In order for someone to be convicted, there cant be any reasonable doubt, in this case their was doubt, and any decent judge and jury would see this in an appeal. Personally, I blame the media for everything. When Laci was missing and Scott wasn't even a suspect, the media told the country where Scott was fishing that night. If someone else killed her, that was their perfect chance to dump the body where Scott was and frame him. Because the case got such nationwide attention, it wouldn't look good for the jury to acquit a man who most of the country thinks is guilty. By finding him guilty and sentencing him to death, it makes the jury look like heros and gives them their 15 minutes of fame. I bet if the case was a local thing in California and the rest of teh country didn't really know about it, he would have been acquitted. Also, the fact that Scott didn't show emotion doesn't really mean a thing. Some people just don't show emotions. If he truly is innocent, I'm sure he felt sad and upset and angry at the real murderer, but some people just never physically show it.