Scott Peterson trial - opening statements set to begin tomorrow..

[poohandwendy]

But the thing is, direct evidence is not always available in murder cases. So, there really is no way to prove those cases (no eyewitnesses) without circumstantial evidence. So, you are , in essence, saying that someone has to be seen committing the murder to be punished by death, right?

I disagree. I think if the evidence, (direct or indirect/circumstantial) proves to the jury that the defendant comitted a capital crime, they should be eligible to receive the death penalty. That is not to say that a jury WILL send them to detah row. The penalty phase allows the jury an opportuinity to decide whether or not the defendant deserves to die for their crime.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
But the thing is, direct evidence is not always available in murder cases. So, there really is no way to prove those cases (no eyewitnesses) without circumstantial evidence. So, you are , in essence, saying that someone has to be seen comitting a murder to be punished by death, right?

---------------------------------

I guess that IS what I'm saying.. I'm just not comfortable with it.. Heck - I can't even put a worm on a hook - LOL..

 

[poohandwendy]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it. I think it depends on whether or not you agree with the death penalty as justified punishment. I do, but I know many people do not.

 

[Epcotgal8]

I'm perfectly calm, I assure you. I am not angry and was just stating my side of things. I am sorry if I sounded brusque, I honestly didn't mean to. I guess it's the way my writing comes across sometimes but I was just playing devil's advocate and didn't mean to sound rude or anything. Ok?

Originally posted by C.Ann
------------------------------

Hey - calm down!! No one is calling you "stupid" or anything else.. We're just discussing information that has been posted here by MANY posters that evidently isn't what it appears to be or what they believe it to be.. NOTHING PERSONAL - honest!!!

And let me clarify what I'm saying about Scott Peterson.. I am NOT saying he "didn't do it" - odds are he probably did - what I AM saying is that there isn't enough CONCRETE information to hand the man a death sentence.. If they can prove it with more than circumstantial evidence, then I say FRY HIM.. But I think it would be terribly wrong to execute a man based on what little evidence they currently appear to have..

Really - NONE of this is aimed at you directly - okay?

 

[poohandwendy]

And another thing, I actually prefer certain types of circumstantial evdence to direct evidence. I would rather see a conviction based on a pile of compelling circumstantial evidence than just one witness who 'says' they saw you commit a crime. I am sure there have been just as many people wrongly convicted, based on false eyewitness testimony...as those who were wrongly convicted by circumstantial evidence.

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by Epcotgal8
I'm perfectly calm, I assure you. I am not angry and was just stating my side of things. I am sorry if I sounded brusque, I honestly didn't mean to. I guess it's the way my writing comes across sometimes but I was just playing devil's advocate and didn't mean to sound rude or anything. Ok?

-----------------------

Glad to hear it! I just wanted to make absolutely sure that you knew that I was not picking on you or trying to ridicule you in any manner..

 

[C.Ann]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
I would rather see a conviction based on a pile of compelling circumstantial evidence than just one witness who 'says' they saw you commit a crime. I am sure there have been just as many people wrongly convicted, based on false eyewitness testimony...as those who were wrongly convicted by circumstantial evidence.

-----------------------

This is a very good point - and I would have to hear from more than "one" eye witness - someone above reproach, not some druggy or such - before I would agree to the death penalty..

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
And another thing, I actually prefer certain types of circumstantial evdence to direct evidence. I would rather see a conviction based on a pile of compelling circumstantial evidence than just one witness who 'says' they saw you commit a crime. I am sure there have been just as many people wrongly convicted, based on false eyewitness testimony...as those who were wrongly convicted by circumstantial evidence.

I agree with you here. Eyewitness testimony has proven to be so inaccurate that I really don't believe it will be admitted into our courts within the next decade or so. Check out these statistics sometime, they will blow your mind! Our minds just aren't able to grasp (for the most part) reality during times of crisis.

Edited to say:

I don't think these witnesses are OUT to get anyone. I just don't believe they had a grasp on reality when they stated whatever it was that they said.

 

[poohandwendy]

I have read stats on eyewitness accounts/testimony and ITA. They can be completely off base. Human beings are imperfect and our recollection of facts can be quite skewed by many things, bias/prejudice for example.

As far as their value being obsolete in the future, I guess it is possible. Hard to say. But I do agree, there is much room for human error with eyewitness testimony. Fortunately, in the penalty phase of a criminal trial, many things are taken into consideration before handing down the death penalty. I think that is key. I am considered pro death penalty, but I do not think it should be handed out without thougtful consideration and only for the most heinous, premeditated crimes.

I wonder how many of you would want to be part of the jury on a capital case? I am not sure. I am fascinated by the trial process and feel strongly that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is absolutely imperative in deciding another persons fate. I probably would not make a good juror on a high profile case, like the Peterson case, I have read far too much to not consider myself at least a little bit biased. I wouldn't feel comfortable going into a case expecting a defense atty to disprove my preconceptions.

Edited to add: While I feel Scott Peterson is guilty, I would definitely have to see proof to legally convict him. I have my opinion, but it certainly isn't open to being completely disproved in the process of this trial.