They just sentenced Scott Peterson to death. I just don't believe in the death penalty for anyone except people guilty of crimes against humanity...and even then it's got to be really bad.

Once you have someone in custody, you don't ever have to kill them. If it's war that's different, but to kill someone that you have in a cell....that's just sick to me.

Just wondering how you all feel about it.

If its over 2 kills you should be killed, but other then that they should be jailed for life and should be used to make money for the state by making them work (not slave labor).

Heart wrote: Once you have someone in custody, you don't ever have to kill them. If it's war that's different, but to kill someone that you have in a cell....that's just sick to me.

I agree with that statement and I'm opposed to the death penalty.

And there have been too many cases of people put to death who were innocent. Yet another reason to eliminate the death penalty. The system is flawed.

I believe that every human life is sacred, and every life has the potential to become
"Christ-Like". For me , as long as that potential exists, it is wrong to kill.

I don't believe in the death penalty because I personally feel that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death. If I were ever convicted of a crime that warranted the death penalty...I would request it. I'd rather die than spend life in prision

Two wrongs don't make a right. The death penalty deters criminals just as much as a cliff deters a suicidal person from jumping off of it. The state does not have a right to sanction a vengeful execution. This is not acceptable even in times of war. We should only kill because we HAVE to.

I believe the death penalty does nothing but satisfy our need for vengence. I have found myself saying, "I hope they execute that monster" about a number of criminals - as a knee-jerk reaction. But it is just that, a knee-jerk reaction to wanting there to be vengence for a life taken - it is not what I believe to be the proper or effective punishment for any crime.

Well put !

Is it really true that Scott Peterson got sentenced with

NO previous convictions
No actual concrete evidence (only the circumstansial one of the appearance of bodies in a place he had been fishing earlier - which could have been staged to frame him.)
No apparent motive. He was breaking up with Amber Fry.
Not even when they tried to make him admit it using the police tactic of taping his conversations with Amber Fry, did he get near to admitting anything.

Either he is extremely clever at covering up evidence and committing the perfect crime or else he did not do it.

I heard one person (a female reporter) say 'Either he is the unluckiest man in the world to have been fishing where the bodies later turn up. Or he is guilty.'

How about number three: he was framed to appear to have done it.

Motive: Maybe Amber was paid sufficiently. Maybe Scott was hated by the group that did it. Maybe it was an antiabortion motivation. the way being opened to call this a double murder.

I do not like Scott, but even so, I do not think anyone should be given the death penalty under such ridiculously slim evidence and with the way the trial went. The foreman was thrown out (resigned under pressure) and the new man put in two days before the verdict was 'guilty' . The new man, who probably had no idea of what the case had covered so far, who happened to be a fireman (pro-republican? Not very highly educated in things like law) rather than a law man (democrats are trial lawyers and seek the common good), who may have been bribed, who may have been pressured or threatened, who may have threatened or pressured the rest of the jury.

To me it has the hallmarks of a Freemason, or KKK or other black operation. We had one in the UK and it (similarly) led to changes in the law. I will look it up for you.

I voted for the death penalty in cases of mass murder. But I feel bad about it because you can frame just about anyone with enough cooperation or pressure on people.

Link to joevialls.co.uk Go down the center till you come to Murder of Holly and Jessica

The quick catchup. The man who got life sentence had a girlfriend at the time. That makes me think he did not do the crime. Her name was Maxine Carr and she got out of jail after a short while as she was only sentenced to allegedly covering up for Ian Huntley. They found out that Ian Huntley had a criminal record. In the near past it has been illegal to bring up previous crimes when being tried for one crime, so I heard recently, although I seem to remember in the old crime films ''The defendent has asked certain other listed crimes to be taken into consideration'' which always baffled me. The shock of the nation that this guy gets to work with children and that the police force were so neglegent about looking up this guy's record before giving him a job as caretaker in a primary school, led to a knee jerk reaction. I believe the result is hoped to be that certain previous crimes can be brought up in a trial. I have not read the latest article Part Four. But I am convinced there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Yeah, I agree that the evidence was definately circumstantial. It sounds like they just didn't like the guy. They probably also did not want to be like the OJ jury (though I watched the WHOLE trial cause I was a student then and didn't have to go to work, and the evidence left a LOT of room for doubt so I concluded that there was no way I would have convicted him). I think CA juries think too much about the OJ case and second guessed themselves this time. I also worry about how many times this happens and we don't know about it at all. I heard once that about 30% of inmates are actually not guilty. I believe it too. Our legal system presumes guilt. It's just so sick...so so sick. That's the Liberal part of me coming out huh? Now you know why I always get those scores on the tests:)

I would venture to bet that those 30% innocent who were wrongfully convicted did not have the money for a high dollar attorney. Yet another reason to end the death penalty.

Regarding OJ, I think he was guilty but the evidence brought forth during the trial and the mishaps of the police dept left room for reasonable doubt, IMO. I also read that the jury was somewhat of an activist jury who felt that since so many blacks had been wrongfully convicted, this was an opportunity to employ compensatory justice. This could be mere rumor though.

I had to do alot of thinking about this one, what if my child were murdered how would i feel about the murderer getting the death penalty..

At first my reaction was I would want him/her dead, but then after thinking about it, I decided i didnt want them dead I just wanted them to suffer and have to think about what they did for the rest of thier entire life.

But thinking about that.. i realized that taxes i pay would be supporting the very person who killed my child which i would hate doing.

So i basically decided death was to good for them and they should have to labor away thier life in prison to pay for what they did, and pay for thier keep so I dont have to, to me that is a fate worse then death.

The death penalty does not deter crime. It only avenges ones who loved the victims.

I think most people willing to kill in cold blood, don't value their own lives, let alone other lives or the ones who loved their victims. If they can get a good meal and facilities while awaiting there peaceful release from what they perceive as a miserable life, they are not deterred.

I did not follow the Peterson trial very often, and therefore, my comments are strictly from a philosophical stand point. Here is what bothers me about this case. We, as a society, do not normally sentence people to death who are convicted on circumstantial evidence... It seems to me, that a life sentence, without parole, would have been more appropriate, given the lack of physicial evidence. Do I think he did it?... Probably.... He certainly had the opportunity, the potential motive, the wherewithall, and he is a strange bird, so in my opinion, yeah, he probably did it, but without direct proof, I would be hard pressed to hand down a death sentence. What is more concerning to me is that this may set a precedent , more or less. One, that may allow someone to be convited and sentence to death based on circumstancial evidence, something which our law has not normally allowed... Our judicial interpretation is usually based on case history. This could have a bigger implication then meets the eye. I also think the jurors should keep quiet. The more they talk, the more likely some judge will award Peterson a new trial. They are giving TMI. Peterson is probably a sociopath, and may deserve what he has been sentence to, but I am not sure that the prosecution really proved their case, atleast well enough, to support a death penalty conviction. Then again, I amy be wrong on this, as I said, I did not follow too closely.

I think the death penalty is a particularly upsurd practice. It doesn't make any sense! We're basically saying "Ok, it was wrong for you to kill someone, so we're going to kill you to prove it." What kind of message is that? I am against the death penalty for a variety of reasons.
1. It is not administered fairly. Too often, those with money get life, and those without get death.
2. It is not a deterrant to crime. We are the only industrialized country that still continues such a practice, and we have MUCH higher murder rates than other industrialized countries. In fact, if you want to break it down in our own country, the states WITHOUT the death penalty have LOWER murder rates than states WITH the death penalty (at least this used to be true, I haven't seen recent information)
3. It does little to console the victim's family. It still leaves a feeling of unsettlement and remorse because no matter what you do to the murderer, it does not bring the victim back.
4. To me, it appears unconstitutional. If death isn't a "cruel and unusual" punishment, I don't know what is.
5. There are many innocent people on death row. Look at Illinois for example. A college class at Northwestern University reviewed some of the numerous capital punishment cases in Illinois and found at least 11 people sentenced to life to be completely innocent of the crimes they were convicted.

That about sums up my reasonings for being against the death penalty.

NO

Even if I would like to see President Bush sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, I'm still against this kind of penalty, because I think strongly that the LIFE is one of the most important RIGHT of every human being, and NO ONE could decide to kill another person, even if a State