lawrocket 3 #1 December 14, 2004 The judge in the Petersen case has an option of reducing Petersen's sentence to life without the possibility of parole. The judge does not have to follow the jury's recommendation. Hearing the judge's tone, he may not be willing to do it. Sentencing is Feb. 25, 2005. It may also limit issues of appeal, and lower the profile of the case. What do you think the judge will do? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 December 14, 2004 It doesn't really matter in California. A death sentence is a life sentence. California has only executed something like 16 people since it reinstated the death penalty however many years ago. How many people are there on death row in CA? It's some absurd number compared to the number actually executed.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 December 14, 2004 It would save a LOT of taxpayer dollars if he'd lower it to life without. I'm not so much concerned about the actual sentance, just how much more we're going to spend. If it's a death sentance the appeal becomes automatic in California and it just costs more. He probably won't actually be put to death anyway, so lowering it now would just make good fiscal sense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 December 14, 2004 QuoteIt doesn't really matter in California. A death sentence is a life sentence. California has only executed something like 16 people since it reinstated the death penalty however many years ago. How many people are there on death row in CA? It's some absurd number compared to the number actually executed. People do get executed...the judges from the 80s were dumped out. And when it happens, the vigils show up at San Quentin for a few nights. Sure, it's for crimes committed in the 70s or 80s, it seems. While there are many opposed to capital punishment up here, I suspect that the judge would pay a price for rejecting the jury's decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #5 December 14, 2004 He's a relativley well presented white male. He won't be executed.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #6 December 14, 2004 With over 600 people on d/r in Ca., do you think it really matters that someone is given the d/p? Unless an inmate is anywhere near the top of the list to be executed within the next 10-20 (?) years most likely that person will die in prison. The latter, I would think, would be the worst punishment."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alana 0 #7 December 14, 2004 QuoteHe's a relativley well presented white male. He won't be executed. "Well presented", why do you think he was convicted? One of his down falls was the fact that his demeanor throughout the entire trial was solumn, closed and unemotional. I wouldn't call Scott well presented, actually his "presentation" worked against him. He jsut lost his wife and unborn child, show some emotion!!! ANy normal, innocent human being would have. The jury didn't convict him on his "good looks" they looked inside and saw the detached liar that he is.... In Italian we say.."chi tasse consente"..who stays quiet, accepts/agrees..Scott's good at that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alana 0 #8 December 14, 2004 QuoteIt doesn't really matter in California. A death sentence is a life sentence. Agreed. A death sentence in CA is solice for the defending parties, but it will leave the guilty party rotting in jail for the next 20+ years while he waits his turn. I think the judge will give him the death penalty to do justice to Laci and Connor, knowing that he will sit there for years to come... I say let him rot there. LWOP is hard enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #9 December 14, 2004 I think giving him LWOP would be more cruel, wouldn't it? I'm not terribly familiar with the penal system in California, but aren't prisoners on death row put in single cells and kept "safe," relative to prisons with 25-life and LWOP sentences? I know some states have separate facilities and complete segregation of death row inmates.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #10 December 16, 2004 Quotebut aren't prisoners on death row put in single cells and kept "safe," relative to prisons with 25-life and LWOP sentences? I know some states have separate facilities and complete segregation of death row inmates. My thoughts as well. He would be alot "safer" for the next 20 years if he spends it on death row. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #11 December 16, 2004 QuoteI think giving him LWOP would be more cruel, wouldn't it? Yeah it would. As crazy as it might seem prisoners have their own ranking system and realy dont like child killers like Peterson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #12 December 16, 2004 Absolutely, if he gets the death penalty, he's getting off easy, a solitary cell to himself for the next 20 years for his appeals to run their course, as opposed to getting his ass reamed every day in the general prison population if he got LWOP. Wife and baby killers tend to get their asses reamed. Some have been killed themselves by other inmates. Remember Jeffrey Dahmer? Hadn't been in prison over a year and gets stabbed or beaten to death... Granted, he was a much worse monster than Scott..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #13 December 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteHe's a relativley well presented white male. He won't be executed. "Well presented", why do you think he was convicted? One of his down falls was the fact that his demeanor throughout the entire trial was solumn, closed and unemotional. I wouldn't call Scott well presented, actually his "presentation" worked against him. He jsut lost his wife and unborn child, show some emotion!!! ANy normal, innocent human being would have. The jury didn't convict him on his "good looks" they looked inside and saw the detached liar that he is.... In Italian we say.."chi tasse consente"..who stays quiet, accepts/agrees..Scott's good at that. In English we call that, "acquiescence." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #14 December 16, 2004 QuoteAbsolutely, if he gets the death penalty, he's getting off easy, a solitary cell to himself for the next 20 years for his appeals to run their course, as opposed to getting his ass reamed every day in the general prison population if he got LWOP. Wife and baby killers tend to get their asses reamed. Some have been killed themselves by other inmates. Remember Jeffrey Dahmer? Hadn't been in prison over a year and gets stabbed or beaten to death... Granted, he was a much worse monster than Scott... BTW, that was his second murder attemot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
