|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Scott Peterson: Death
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-14-2004 12:12 PM
I'm going to try and avoid any political dimension to the following remarks as much as I can. Brad et al - please feel free to edit or delete any of this if you feel I've overstepped the line.
As a general rule I oppose the death penalty, but for him I'll make an exception.
It's not so much the fact that he murdered his wife and unborn child, but the amorality and cold-bloodedness which caused him to do it that shocked me about this case. As a Californian friend recently expressed it to me in an email, men who find they don't want to be married anymore or who get frightened at the prospect of being a father divorce their wives and pay maintenance, or at the absolute worst run away across the border. Not only did Peterson do what he did instead, but the evidence shows that he contemplated it and prepared for it for a long time previously. There were plenty of chances for him to have woken up, smelt the coffee and then pulled out.
The fact that he went through with it coupled with the lack of any other evidence of mental illness suggests to me that he simply doesn't operate along anything like the same moral principles of even 99.99% of the rest of us. Putting any revenge motive aside (and I do oppose the death penalty on those grounds), quite simply, there has to be a foolproof way of making 100% sure that no other woman or unborn child will ever be at risk from him again. There is also the issue of giving the family and friends of his victims the chance of getting a night's sleep ever again, and I hope that the jury took that into account in arriving at their decision.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-14-2004 01:52 PM
I think it also has to do with how much the families involved make an issue about the circumstances surrounding any crime. For example, just before 9/11 all we heard about was Chandra Levy's disappearance. Yeah, even though it was a sexy tale of secret meetings, a popular Congressman, and sex, it was also sensationalized because the Levy family was always on TV. They never missed a chance to talk to the media and the media never missed a chance to run with them.
Samething goes for Elizabeth Smart, the "Amber" case, and even that girl in Michigan who was killed in her parent's basement . . . you know the beauty queen at age seven - what was her name? These families never missed a chance to get on TV, shed some tears and beg the public about WHERE their kid is, or WHO killed their kid. Mostly its their scum bag lawyer who is coaxing them to do TV so the case doesn't die until its solved. And to the delight of the lawyers, in some cases its never solved.
Two years ago, a few twentysomethings from Ohio drove over here to Pennsylvania to rape and kill a highschool girl they picked up along the road. Dumb asses probably would have gotten away with it if they didn't return to the crime scene the next day with gasoline and matches in order to burn the body. Within a few days they were all arrested and one did get the death penalty (in Penssylvania execution is anywhere from 15 - 18 years after the crime). Nevertheless, during that time, the girls parents didn't do TV or anyother media outlet. They were poor scrubs from a working-class neighborhood from an area of the country nobody really gives a shit about in which their daughter's murderers were on the next rung down on Darwin's ladder.
I don't even remember her name.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-15-2004 12:23 PM
Time for the Dave'ster to chime in on this one.
With all the hysteria around this Scott Petersen trial and now the death penalty, it is absolutely amazing to me just how many people are willing to put this man to death, when taking into account, that NO ONE actually knows for sure what happened.
Remember that the account we have recieved from the prosecutors is only thier theory of what happened. The fact that the jury bought it is easily understandable. These same people are of the general population and probably couldn't tell the difference between film and video projection. Then again, I wouldn't really know that either, as I do not know them either, nor do I know what really happened in the jury room during deliberation.
The facts are simple...
1. NO ONE was there, so therefore no one can really know for sure what really happened.
2. Biblical arguments aside, Capitol Punishment can never be undone, so should not be an option, in the case of error.
3. Nothing attracts a crowd like a lynching.
Yep, the scott petersen deal reminds me of an old tyme lynching. Quite often people would stick the guilty monaker on someone, rightfully or not, and the whole town would gather to chant words of hate and disgust as they hung the poor man to death.
I am not saying he is innocent. Once again, I do not know one way or the other. The poor jury has to decide that one for all of us.
Even with all the evidence produced, I still am not convinced. I would have been voted out of the jury because I would refuse to convict based upon the evidence provided.
Recall the rules of criminal law, well at least the most important one....
IF you find any reasonable doubt as to guilt, no matter how small, you must find the defendant not guilty. It is so very important that we remember that it be of value that 9 guilty men go free than to imprison ONE innocent man.
That is the basis of our system of justice. I however sadly find that here it did not go that way. Instead, emotions played a bigger part in the findings and sentencing, than did actual fact.
Argue all you want with me, and I am sure you will, but I could not have found him guilty based upon the evidence provided, no matter how much of a scumbag he was or wasn't.
Ciao baby
Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic