The Scot peterson trial

It's probably safe to say, if your state has the DP, it's costing Taxpayers more money.

"Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment."

"# The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.

# The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).

# The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater."

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
And death row? The guy is in California. He will sit on Death Row for another 20 years.

---

See, CA has the cheapest form of the DP, plus they look good at the same time. Life without parole, get shanked with a toothbrush and die in the yard or lunch-line. Really, effective!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Spoken like a true texan.... The only place where you can still choose hanging as the way you want to die.

---

Wow, folklore!
According to the National Death Penalty Center TX DP is "Lethal injection is the sole method." The only states that have hangings are New Hampshire and Washington.

A juvenile at the time, murdered my greatgrandmother with his foot, during a home invasion for an old TV and some jewelry. Do I think he should be sitting on DR? Nah, he ****ed up when he was a kid. Life without parole should be his punishment.

By punishment, do you mean a corrective measure or a retaliatory measure? We must remmeber that the penal system serves 3 purposes:

1. To punish offenders for their actions.
2. To prevent them from hurting the innocent.
3. To rehabilitate the offender.

Punishing the offenders is immediately served by placing them in prison. The question then becomes, what is the correct amount of time to place them in jail for? This is a decision best left to lawmakers and judge panels.

However this is not sufficient where the offense goes beyond a mere crime, and others are hurt as a result of these actions. The problem then is how to best rehabilitate the offender. In some cases, the act of punishing them for their crime is enought to prevent its future occurence. Unfortunately, reactive measures beyond punishment by incarceration have not been effectively used yet.

In cases where death penalties would be handed out, I do not agree that hard labour is an appropriate alternative. These people have been incarcerated not as a punishment, but to prevent their harming people again.Where punishment does not serve as a deterrent, I do not agree with its application.

If these people cannot be rehabilitated by means at our disposal, life imprisonment becomes the only effectives solution to execution.

<edit>
In response to !mitationRusts's post above, I would like to state my opinion that the cost should have absolutely no impact on our decision to execute people or not. No value can be placed on life, so bringing money into an argument where life is at stake is immoral IMHO.
</edit>

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Striek
By punishment, do you mean a corrective measure or a retaliatory measure? We must remmeber that the penal system serves 3 purposes:

1. To punish offenders for their actions.
2. To prevent them from hurting the innocent.
3. To rehabilitate the offender.

---

I think you're trying to separate 1 and 2, when they really tie together. 1 and 3 tie together aswell. Plus, 3 and 2 tie together. ;)

Life without parole, hmmm, let's see. Hmm, he's being punished, he's prevented from hurting the public and he's going through rehabilitation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Striek In cases where death penalties would be handed out, I do not agree that hard labour is an appropriate alternative. These people have been incarcerated not as a punishment, but to prevent their harming people again.Where punishment does not serve as a deterrent, I do not agree with its application.

---

You're trying to place someone in 1 of 3 categories, when they actually belong in all three. This is where the money comes in. (Labor=Food) thus saves money, so more prisons can be established, so more justice is served and more people are safe.

All i can say is I believe he did it and I do believe in the death penalty but I dont know scott peterson personally so i cant judge him other than by his actions... i hope he makes his peace with God.

I don't know. Maybe he is guilty and maybe he is not. All I know is that I don't wish someone to die based on personal feelings. Actually, I gotta say that don't wish anyone to die period.

Quote:

---

Wow, folklore!
According to the National Death Penalty Center TX DP is "Lethal injection is the sole method." The only states that have hangings are New Hampshire and Washington.

---

Wow. I had actually heard this from a Texan that you could choose hanging over another form of the death pentalty. Looks like they may of been wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Grunt
Very interesting thought. I think that is a great way to put it. What do you believe should be their punishment to keep them from hurting society any more than they already have?

---

i have an idea.
- Givem to them a .45 revolver and a Brazlian Cop Uniform
- Send them to Rio de Janeiro
- Make them climb the Hills and shout on loud "Police!!!!"
- Instant death. Really fast.

Texas is one of the few states where hanging is still on the books - it's in our state constitution. Only one crime carries hanging as the penalty however, that of cattle rustling, however I'm quite sure that lethal injection (or being shot by the cattle's rightful owner if caught in the act) would be more in line with the times. It isn't an option given to capital criminals. The last legal hanging in Texas occurred in 1923 (Roy Mitchell, hanged for murder), after which the state switched to the electric chair, then to Lethal injection in 1977.


sources:
http://sbt.bhmedia.com/laws.html
http://www.texaslawreporter.com/
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibra...hpenprint.html

Back on to Scot Peterson (sen, however his name is spelled) - I still maintain that this individual is guilty, and should be executed for his crime. I base this on the fact that a jury of his peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore by our laws, he did it. In a state like Florida (quite liberal as compared to Texas, where we execute for parking violations) the jury saw fit to give him the ultimate punishment for his crime. This in and unto itself is proof that the jury had no doubts whatsoever as to his guilt. In addition, and a fact little known to the common masses, the judge presiding over his trial could have at any time overturned both verdict and penalty had he disagreed with them, or suspected they'd overlooked something, or if whim or political views had so guided him to do so. The jury found him guilty, awarded death, the judge didn't overrule them. I said 'fry the bastard' once before, and I stick by it.

I personally have reservations about the death penalty.

1. I do not believe that it should be available when the evidence is circumstantial, or based ENTIRELY on pseudo-forensics like "ear prints", "glove prints" etc.

2. I do not believe that it should be available in a system that is based on contention rather than facts.

3. I believe that just as the State and religion should be kept apart, so should politics and the legal system.

I would feel happier with a death sentence given by a Scottish or French court than one from a UK or US one. This is because their methodology is more designed to determine the truth. For example the verdict in Scotland can be:
1. Guilty
2. Not Guilty
3. Not Proven

In France, you have to appear before three examining magistrates who decide if there is a case to answer. In court you have three judges and nine jurors.

Although we appear not to have the death penalty in the UK, we actually still do :eek:

1. Arson in Her Majeesty's dockyards.
2. High Treason.
3. Endagering the Royal Succession
4. Piracy on the High Seas (BlackIce will like that one! :xbones)

Just my thoughts

Is he dead yet?