Do you agree with the Scott Peterson verdict?
If so, Why?
If not, Why Not?
Thanks...
2006-06-12 16:21:29 · 9 answers · asked by kaitlyn 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I did not see much hard evidence against him.
2006-06-12 17:39:22 · answer #1 · answered by Cas 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only the people on the jury who have had all of the evidence and all of the arguments presented to them are in a proper position to make that determination.
If you're not familiar with the facts of the case, you're probably making your decision on hype, hearsay, and emotional reactions.
And this goes for any trial. The media biases people. This is the primary reason why juries need to be sequestered.
A lot of people were pronouncing Michael Jackson guilty simply because they perceived him as an odd character and were emotionally swayed by the testimony they heard ABOUT concerning some of the young boys. I repeat that no one except the jury or judge is in a position to render a verdict in the case.
2006-06-13 00:08:13 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Being a resident of the Modesto area I think it was a lousy verdict. They convicted him for adultery and honestly they had very little evidence of anything else. He was such a cad, adulterer that the jury hated him. I still can't believe that "defense team" let those tapes go on for 11 hours in the court room for the jury to hear of his phone conversations with the massues lady.
In this neck of the woods (Modesto) its a just sentence for an adulterer though.
2006-06-12 23:26:54 · answer #3 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty, yes! Kill him, maybe not. Life in prison is way cheaper for the state, because appeals for death penalty cases are automatically appealed in most instances, leading to years and years of costly litigation. Life without parole should mean just what it says! This guy is the most creepy perp I have ever seen on TV, yes?
2006-06-12 23:38:05 · answer #4 · answered by correrafan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the verdict completely. I just wish that the death penalty reflected the way you murdered your victims. Maybe then we wouldn't have as many murders out there.
2006-06-12 23:26:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just like the OJ Simpson case...I believe he committed the crime, but I don't think the prosecution proved its case. Therefore, I think he has grounds for appeal, because his lawyer didn't demand a change of venue. (If the lawyer did, and it was denied, that is still grounds for appeal) ...the prosecutor did not fully prove his case.
2006-06-12 23:28:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.
2006-06-14 02:49:04 · answer #7 · answered by SeahawkFan37 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty yes; death penalty no. His guilt is pretty clear. What is not clear is why killing him will help.
2006-06-12 23:23:50 · answer #8 · answered by bilskine 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who cares ... why bring this up?
2006-06-12 23:25:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋