Police once theorized Laci Peterson was poisoned - Page 6

gldstwmn · #76 09-30-2004, 05:13 PM

Still not enough evidence to convict with death penalty, IMO.

amber · #77 09-30-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Still not enough evidence to convict with death penalty, IMO.

What should they convict with? How about the "boys will be boys" penalty? just kidding, i know what you mean....

But the death penalty is what we've got, isn't it? I mean, if he's guilty, he should just be convicted, and I don't think the jury should be dissuaded from convicting just cause he'll get a death penalty...
Amber

dissention · #78 09-30-2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Still not enough evidence to convict with death penalty, IMO.

I agree, especially since I don't believe in the death penalty. But he still murdered her.

amber · #79 09-30-2004, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I agree, especially since I don't believe in the death penalty. But he still murdered her.

But still then, what should happen?

dissention · #80 09-30-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

But still then, what should happen?

Honestly, I think both sides need to rest their cases before I make my final decision on whether or not I would convict. I lean both sides often.

But the evidence at this point says that he did it. Everyone who says there isn't enough to convict him aren't acknowledging all the cases where people were convicted on less; I think the evidence that proves his guilt is abundant, the only problem is that it's circumstantial. But also very powerful.

amber · #81 09-30-2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Honestly, I think both sides need to rest their cases before I make my final decision on whether or not I would convict. I lean both sides often.

But the evidence at this point says that he did it. Everyone who says there isn't enough to convict him aren't acknowledging all the cases where people were convicted on less; I think the evidence that proves his guilt is abundant, the only problem is that it's circumstantial. But also very powerful.

right, but i'm asking, if you thought he was guilty, but he was supposed to get the death penalty for being guilty, would you then NOT want to convict him, just cause he gets the death penalty??
AMber

dissention · #82 09-30-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

right, but i'm asking, if you thought he was guilty, but he was supposed to get the death penalty for being guilty, would you then NOT want to convict him, just cause he gets the death penalty??
AMber

No, I would convict. I'd be ashamed of myself for voting for a mans death, but that doens't mean he should get away with murder.

strandinthewind · #83 09-30-2004, 06:05 PM

Again, unless the prosecution carries its burden and satisfies all elements of the crime and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson did this crime, he should not be convicted no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence may be.

If someone (in general) does not like that, they need to vote to get a new criminal system. Otherwise, a conviction on less than that, makes one just as guilty as the murderer of Ms. Peterson. The law allows the jury to vote to terminate a life ONLY when the prosection establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commtted the elements of the accused crime and that pretty much requires direct evidence - which may or may not be present in this case but I have not seen all the evidence - from what I have seen, the evidence is circumstantial. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true.

amber · #84 09-30-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, unless the prosecution carries its burden and satisfies all elements of the crime and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson did this crime, he should not be convicted no matter how strong the circumstantial evidence may be.

If someone (in general) does not like that, they need to vote to get a new criminal system. Otherwise, a conviction on less than that, makes one just as guilty as the murderer of Ms. Peterson. The law allows the jury to vote to terminate a life ONLY when the prosection establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commtted the elements of the accused crime and that pretty much requires direct evidence - which may or may not be present in this case but I have not seen all the evidence - from what I have seen, the evidence is circumstantial. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true.

Yeah, but as i said before, I think the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence will put the jury beyond reasonable doubt..
AMber

strandinthewind · #85 09-30-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

Yeah, but as i said before, I think the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence will put the jury beyond reasonable doubt..
AMber

I know that - but it is not establishing the elements of the crime - that requires a direct link. They are two different things. If you do not believe me, look it up

dissention · #86 09-30-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that - but it is not establishing the elements of the crime - that requires a direct link. They are two different things. If you do not believe me, look it up

No one is arguing that, they're simply saying that he is going to be convicted based on the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. And he will be.

strandinthewind · #87 09-30-2004, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

No one is arguing that, they're simply saying that he is going to be convicted based on the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. And he will be.

Then the people who convict him on that are just as "guilty" because from what I have read California apparently allows for the taking of a defendant's life ONLY when the elements of the crime are established, which they cannot be without some direct evidence, which from what I have seen is lacking in this case. But, such is the plight of a jury - do they do what they want or do they do what the law says - if they were your jury, what would you want them to do

amber · #88 09-30-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know that - but it is not establishing the elements of the crime - that requires a direct link. They are two different things. If you do not believe me, look it up

oh, yeah. but I studied that last semester, you can't expect me to remember, can you

so, they have to prove intent, which i think they can, what else?

strandinthewind · #89 09-30-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

oh, yeah. but I studied that last semester, you can't expect me to remember, can you

so, they have to prove intent, which i think they can, what else?

You get no more free rides

- look it up - look up cases where the D was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence and then look at what the court's have determined is circumstantial evidence.

amber · #90 09-30-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You get no more free rides

- look it up - look up cases where the D was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence and then look at what the court's have determined is circumstantial evidence.

You're not my teacher, or the boss of me!!!

I haven't even done my real homework yet, now i have to look that up, too? Is this tough love?

anyways, ok, whatever.
AMber