Jury debates over Scott Peterson’s fate

[kiyoung80]

So the trial for the “husband from hell” is just about over. With the closing arguments complete, now we all have to wait for the jury to deliberate.

How does everyone feel about this case? Do you think he’ll walk or get what he deserves? Also – I’ve been told that the judge is only going to give a 2-hour notice once the jury has reached its verdict. We do have a cable TV in the lounge area here at work, so I’ve been setting it to Court TV to try and keep up-to-date. I even noticed on their website that you can get the verdict sent to your cell phone, which is pretty crazy (though I’m the only one of my friends without one yet!)

Personally, there’s nothing I’d rather see than a death sentence for this disgusting human, though life in prison wouldn’t be a bad 2nd option either.

Kimberly

 

[ScubaFreak]

who be Scott Peterson?

welcome to the board by the way

 

[jonnythan]

I kept hearing the defense case was almost maliciously bad.

Insufficient representation could be grounds for an appeal.

 

[jonnythan]

I also love when people decide that someone is guilty without actually being present at his trial.

 

[Ontario Diver]

Just a reminder to everyone.

TOS : No post should exceed a “PG” rating. Profane, insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here. Neither is any sort of harassment or bullying. Threats of any sort are grounds for immediate banishment. While the debates may wax passionate, there is no need to revert to personal attacks.

One thread about Scott Peterson has already been removed from this board for breaking the above TOS rule. It is recognized that this is an emotional issue. Please let us remain respectful to each other and each other's opinions.

 

[Scubaguy62]

Having first hand experience with our judicial system, Kim, let me just say this; it works. You can disagree, but it does work. People thought OJ should have been convicted, but guess what, the system didn't convict him, because of one fundamental flaw, the prosecution didn't prove its case. Not because he was innocent, but because there was no other way to find, but to find him not guilty. BTW, not guilty doesn't mean innocent; that's why he was found liable in a civil court.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the prosecution must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." What is "reasonable doubt?" Simple, if the defense raises an angle, which the prosecution can't attack, or if it does attack it, it does not make sense in the mind of a reasonable person, there is reasonable doubt and the jury has no option but to acquit. People may not like it, but again, if you don't, please don't blame the jury, blame the prosecution.

If he's found guilty, then it's a question of whether the crime was done with malice and the intention to kill was present for him to be convicted of 1st degree murder and he can get the gas. If either, or both of those two are not present, it's 2nd degree murder and he gets I believe is 15 yrs to life for each count.

People tend to simpathize with the victim, but what if there really was a frame up, who's also a victim? We don't know, and we won't know until the transcript of the trial is made public record. So until then, all we can do is speculate, and speculation hasn't yet, nor will ever (gosh I hope not), convict anyone.

BTW, please fill out your profile. It'd be nice if you did.

 

[teknitroxdiver]

You know, it's always irked me that while there are numerous cases like this every year, only one even gets mentioned on the news. Not to say that it shouldn't be mentioned, but what about all the other freaks who have killed their wives?

 

[ShakaZulu]

He's about as quilty as OJ, hope they both become friends and look for each others wife's killers. Hmmm, my guess they will never find them. And this is the system we promote. I want to go back to the age of public stonigs.

 

[Scubaguy62]

You know, it's always irked me that while there are numerous cases like this every year, only one even gets mentioned on the news. Not to say that it shouldn't be mentioned, but what about all the other freaks who have killed their wives?

I agree! Either they should all be mentioned, or all kept quiet.

 

[Scubaguy62]

Who are we to say OJ's guilty? A jury of his peers found him not guilty. It's true we have freedom of speach, but to hold on to these prejudices, especially when the one who screwed up was the prosecution, is beyond my understanding. As far as Scott Peterson, "the jury still out."