American executions and Scott Peterson case
 

I read today that practice was banned three years ago.

*I lost my original post! Oh well...*

Death sentance is a mockery. It's like society giving up on certain people and wanting to get rid of them, simply cause they're afraid of them. They'd rather remove them from existance then try to find solutions. In this case... I think Scott Petersen IS a sociopath and the jury had no problems hating him since he lacked any emotions during the trial. So they sentanced him to death based on their feelings towards him.

That's a part of the bigger issue here. The jury duty they have in America is WRONG. No criminal or civil trial from the States would ever hold any legal value in Europe or anywhere else. You just can't have 12 random laymans hearing a trial full of legal expressions and doctrines, then have them reach a verdict on a case without any legal expereiance from the past. That's how murderers get aquitted and innocent people executed. That's also the biggest reason for the institute of punitive danages in civil procedings and ridiculous compensations a sympathetic jury often gives to individuals sueing big corporations. Without any legal merit.

I watched an interview on Larry King with a juror from a trial where they aquitted the actor Robert Blake of murdering his wife in 2001. The bastard tried to promote his CD of his memoirs of the trial!! Larry asked him a question and he just went completely ignored it and went "Oh Larry this trial was a terrible ordeal for me and you can read all about it on this CD I made during the trial, that's available for xx on xxxx.com." Are you fucking kidding me?? The guy just came of a jury duty of a murder trial where a plausable murderer went free, cause of lack of evidence and he's already trying to make A PROFIT? *stabs him in his capitalist chest*

We have jurors as well. 2 of them (or 4 in difficult cases) that preside beside the judge. basic difference though is that they are ALL legal experts - they need to pass the bar exam and have at least 10 years of experiance in law. See the difference? Why should there be any HINT of an unfair trial when a man's life is at stake? Or when there's a possibility a murderer could go free?

I agree, the way you describe in Europe is better. But it's in the US Constitution that suspected criminals will be tried by a jury "of their peers". So an amendment would have to be made and passed, which isn't easy.

But! You should never ignore the evidence they *have* found. And what if it *was* Scott Peterson who killed Laci and the unborn baby? I'm one of those people who agree that death sentence is a shamful thing to have, but you should never forget, that Scott Peterson *was* the strongest suspect in the case (Whatever the media said did not have any interference with the trial; Americans aren't *that* stupid, only Bush is.) and the *only* suspect. If in fact he was the killer, I think he deserves to die, for taking a life and a life of a unborn baby who never knew the meaning of life.

Some people deserve to die. Death penalty should be kept and used but used sparingly.

:newyear:

no one has the right to determine the worth of another mans life, even if that man has committed unspeakable crimes. I think it's funny that a nation so deeply immersed in religious beliefs, can justify and condone taking a man's life. God supposedly wrote that man should not kill. Yet it is permitted here and almost made a public spectacle, because as the man dies family members look through a clear glass to watch and find solace. What good christians..




+ i've always felt that scott peterson was innocent, and still do..

And how much is life of victim worth? God also wrote "an eye for an eye".......

:newyear:

No he didn't. :p

He did. :yes:

:newyear:

he did.

But God isn't the issue here. We aren't talking about religious belifes, we are talking about what Scott Peterson may have or may have not went through with the killing. If Laci's parents were Christians, they sure as hell aren't now.

I read today that practice was banned three years ago.

God didn't write jack. Jesus didn't write jack. It was a group of Jesus's followers who people say were just middle men for God, but they were still just laymen.

And remember, those who wrote the Bible thought the world was flat and at the center of the universe. ;)


Whatever happened to God judging people? They say "don't judge people, that's God's job after they die..." But then most religious Christians are also death penalty supporters and anti-gay people. Sounds like personal judgement to me.

God "supposedly" wrote the ten commandments and handed it down to Moses to pass on to his followers..

He did NOT.

Yes, but then they weren't aware of the hallucinatory effect of certain sorts of "home medicine". They are now, so most people who "speak to God" these days are properlly handled. :rolleyes:

...

People, this isn't a god issue, because, if you believe in the bible god, at the same time he says that killing is wrong, you must remember that it was also him who ordered to invade and destroy many cities and tribes mostly because they didn't worshipped him . If you stay on this, you'll remain on these "did or did not" for pages.

If you guys don't stop.... :znaika: We're gonna have Forre or Haku come on over, and you're not gonna like it. :p

Yeah? :nunu: Like I'm scared now..... :spy:

:newyear:

no kidding. :bebebe:

well aren't you guys just spewing with maturity. ;)

This is great, keep it up people!

I think people are missing the hugest point possible. If one is a follower of Christianity- they have a different set of rules/beliefs. Christians are supposed to regard the Old Testament as a book that details basic principles- like the ten commandments. From it you grab your basic moral principles- all told through amazing stories- real or not- who cares really. Perhaps fundamentalist Christians believe you are supposed to believe every word to be true- but in my personal- more moderate Christian beliefs the Old testament should be read like a "the moral of the story is..." It is also a relatively interesting historical document if you are looking at it on a purely non-religious way.

NOW- the KEY- God did say invade this or that, you are my chosen people, eye for an eye, etc. BUT!!!! it was in the OLD testament. This is something that totally and completely irks me. Christians today primarily use the old testament to also denounce homosexuals- since 99% of the quotes against "homosexuality" (male prostitution) are in the OLD testament. Okay my point? If you are a F**** Christian you believe in Jesus. Jesus CHANGED everything.

The idea is that God sent down Jesus for two fold- one to experience humanity first-hand- to become an empathetic God but also primarily to make the ultimate sacrifice such that sins would be forgiven for believers. Here's another thing that irritates me. A lot of people argue- well that is a cop out- all I have to do is say I believe in Jesus and I am in heaven? So I can sin all I want? No that isn't the case. People forget one thing. If you truly take Jesus into your heart- you wouldn't live a life only of sin. You wouldn't look at it like- oh so now I can sin all I want? If you did, you don't truly have Jesus in your heart.

Okay so Jesus came- God become an empathetic God- one because he learned about being human and two because Jesus was a gift...a sacrifice. He was meant to change things. No longer is it eye for an eye. Some people also argue that Jesus was sent by God because people were being totally misled- the old testament was actually a misrepresentation of God's principles- eye for an eye was never a principle- that it was a human creation. Jesus was sent to "correct this wrong". Either way- the point is that after Jesus came- most of the Old testament’s eye for an eye shit flies out the window- either God changed or God corrected human misinterpretation. So for any Christian to quote directly from the Old testament without comparing it to the New is making a huge, gross mistake. They are completely over looking the whole point of Jesus and therefore completely over looking the whole point of Christianity.

I can't speak for other religions who do not believe in Jesus as a savior- but in a Christian nation….- and let's not argue that the US isn't- cause it is, regardless of its freedom of religion standings. The nation is still founded/based in Christian beliefs. One would think, given that idea, the death penalty would be looked upon more harshly. Of course, a lot Christians these days tend to have an extremely skewed view on principles. They go more for quotes than over all moral principles.

EDIT: And let me add- many people also argue about whether the Bible is truly the word of God written through the hands of humans or simply a document written by man. I for one, won't argue either way on the original document- I haven't seen it nor would I understand it even if I did. HOWEVER, I will argue to my death, lol, that it was simply man who has written translation after translation of the Bible. NIV, King James...why are there different versions of the ONE TRUTH?? Because English and other languages have like 10+ times the number of words and synonyms etc. as the original language of the Bible- thus we are left with huge debates like- the word for homosexuality COULD be translated as male prostitute- which totally destroys everything that people spout off about how sinful homosexual consensual committed love is. Prostitution, regardless of gender, is considered wrong in the Bible. But is love irregardless of gender? I argue this question isn't answered in the original Bible- only in translations- where bias goes into each word.