And Peterson was sentenced to death...

[conuly]

Why? Because the evidence was so compelling?

No.

He didn't show enough emotion during the trial.

(Thanks, rpeate)

Okay, youse guys can now talk about how horrible it is, because I'm too cold to do so.

Comments

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

Um, have you been following the case at ALL?

I really didn't expect this level of gullibility from you.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

Sounds like something out of a Camus novel. Next they'll be sentencing people for not crying at their mothers' funerals.

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

GOD, I hate that "no sign of emotion" crap!

GRRRRR!

[dandelion.livejournal.com]

He's guilty, and people who show no emotion are more likely to be repeat offenders.

It wasn't so much that he didn't cry- it seemed more like he did not give a damn at all at any point. I mean, acting like everything's completely normal when you've just killed your wife?

I personally do not agree with the death penalty on principal, but to suggest he's only sentenced because he didn't cry is completely silly.

[thren0dy.livejournal.com]

I go back and forth about the death penalty. In principle, I think it's wrong because there should NEVER be the possibility that an innocent man might get executed. When I think about the horrible things that some monsters masquerading as humans do to people, sometimes I think they deserve it.

But if that is the sole reason he got the death penalty, that is messed up, to say the least.

[conuly]

We don't know that he was guilty. There really wasn't enough evidence to even merit a conviction. As for not showing emotion, that doesn't mean anything. Lots of people have trouble showing socially acceptable emotions, yet they still feel things.

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should report us all to The Almighty, so that He may smite us for our criminal stupidity.

After all, that IS what He put you on the Earth for, isn't it?

X-p

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

The CNN article is seriously slanting that for some reason... Quote directly from the SF Chronicle today in How They Decided He Should Die (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/14/MNGL7ABKFJ1.DTL):

"The evidence was circumstantial from the start, but the jurors said a few simple truths stood out. The bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn son washed up near where Scott Peterson said he had been fishing the day she was reported missing. Peterson told a web of lies to those around him. And his odd behavior -- including continuing to woo his secret girlfriend as police, family and total strangers were looking for his missing wife -- were not the actions of a man who had been wrongly accused.
...
The jurors said that they had finally concluded that death was the right sentence for Peterson because he had betrayed the woman closest to him and the unborn son whose name the couple had already chosen."

I have no idea why CNN over-emphasized the "emotion during the trial" aspect, as the jury was fairly clear that it was a number of factors, particularly his *actions*, that drove them to conclude that he was guilty (and later that he deserved the death penalty).

[conuly]

How is it gullible to say that the reasons the jurors gave freely for this sentence are wrong?

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

I guess you obviously know more than the twelve jurors who gave up six months of their lives to sit on this jury, who had to decide the fate of another human being. I guess since you have all the evidence, you can enlighten the rest of us poor saps?

[conuly]

Hm. See, *that* makes sense. Gah. And I usually trust CNN too! *grumbles annoyedly*

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

Because you are misinterpreting what they said.

"The evidence was circumstantial from the start, but the jurors said a few simple truths stood out. The bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn son washed up near where Scott Peterson said he had been fishing the day she was reported missing. Peterson told a web of lies to those around him. that death was the right sentence for Peterson because he had betrayed the woman closest to him and the unborn son whose name the couple had already chosen."

Reading, it's fun.

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

Obviously, twelve people who were selected by both sides found differently. You know something they don't?

[conuly]

And breathe. Both of you.

Judging from this article, I'm about ready to give up on the "jury of my peers" thing and go for a bench trial next time I'm accused of murder. "Didn't show enough emotion" is not a good reason to go for the death penalty. Okay, I think nothing is, but that's an exceptionally bad reason.

However, moggy kindly pointed me towards other articles which would seem to indicate that CNN is biased. This, of course, is a relief. I'd hate to think that a jury of my peers would judge me by their perceptions of my emotions.

[conuly]

Draco, I'm not getting into another fight with you. You're getting upset over this, far more than I'd expect. Unless you *were* a juror, I don't understand it, but I'm not going to argue with you until you calm down.

Side note, please do *not* type in strong, or whatever that is, because it really fucks up my monitor, no I don't know why.

[conuly]

Yes. I know everything. I see you when you're sleeping, I know when you're awake. I am... SANTA!!!!

And I'm not getting into a fight with you. Please, calm down.

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

::blink::

::blink::

Yes, that's exactly right: Saddam Hussein personally piloted the plane that felled WTC 2.

How did you know?

::exchanges tinfoil hat for fairy-wings and flits out through window to collect newts' gizzards for dinner::

X-D

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I have a very hard time not blasting the old vicarious/armchair lynchmob mentality when it crosses my path - and boy does that commenter have a snootfull of it! Wow!

But I'm done now.

Sorry.

::blushes::

[deathchibi.livejournal.com]

I'm mostly miffed that if Lacey had been hispanic, poor, or anything along those lines, few people would have paid attention to the case at all.

I kind of figured it was him all along, for other reasons, though.

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

As I said before, do you know something the jury doesn't?

He is GUILTY. My saying so doesn't make me a "lynch mob". Deal with it.

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

Are you related to him or something? Why do you have such a hard time accepting the judicial process?

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

I get upset when people who don't have the facts pretend that they know more than those who do; ie, you, and the person replying above.

I don't pretend to know everything, because I was not a juror, but it's obvious to anyone with common sense what happened. He was found guilty because he IS.

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

Obviously you're very misinformed about this case.

It's hard not to be annoyed when this is about the 8 billionth knee-jerk post I've seen about it. "OMG there was no evidence!!!!!"

[threnody.livejournal.com]

Those might equally be the actions of a scumbag and and idiot, but it doesn't mean he's a *guilty* scumbag and idiot.

[threnody.livejournal.com]

Funny we should meet like this. ;)

I agree. Sort of. I agree with the death penalty in principle, but when it comes to fact? I really don't have any trouble with frying someone who did something really heinous, but at the same time who are we to decide this person has to die? Also, I'm not really comfortable with killing someone who might be innocent.

IMO, there is not enough evidence that this person is guilty. It seems a pretty shaky case all over, and order his death even based on that alone just is Not On.