Prosecutors to again seek death penalty against Scott Peterson in long-ago case
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Stanislaus County prosecutors said Friday they will again seek the death penalty for Scott Peterson, whose death sentence was recently overturned nearly 16 years after he was convicted of slaying his pregnant wife, Laci, and the couples unborn son.
The California Supreme Court tossed Petersons death sentence in August, saying the trial judge dismissed jurors who generally opposed capital punishment without asking whether they could put their views aside.
The ruling, however, left the door open for the Stanislaus County District Attorneys Office to bring the case before new jurors, and ask them to reinstate Petersons death sentence or give him life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The District Attorneys office through Assistant District Attorney Dave Harris announced at this time it is their intention to retry the penalty phase of the case, spokesman John Goold wrote on the offices Facebook page Friday morning.
Read more: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Prosecutors-to-again-seek-death-penalty-against-15670987.php
Laffy Kat
(16,355 posts)BUT, if anyone deserves it, he does. I won't lose any sleep over this one.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I completely agree.
marble falls
(56,358 posts)only speaks to me about the inability to mete this punishment in any sort of "fair" or equal manner. Murder is murder. All murder is wrong.
Laffy Kat
(16,355 posts)I have a difficult time applying it to my own psyche. I am not a perfect person. I admire you, though.
Response to alp227 (Original post)
Sucha NastyWoman This message was self-deleted by its author.
oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)SIXTEEN YEARS & tossed on what amounts to an opinion, not any actual law broken
moriah
(8,311 posts)Mainly because trends have suggested "death-qualified" jurors are more likely to convict.
I mean, it gives a great out for serving in a high-profile case, to say you absolutely can't set your views aside.
But my answer would be, "I'm against it as it's currently implemented in the United States, because I'm being asked this very question. I honestly don't know if I could or would vote to sentence someone to death. I'd only know if I were in that situation and presented with the facts in question. But I think this question unfairly eliminates people from serving in the guilt or innocence portion of a trial, which calls into question the fairness of every death penalty verdict out there. I don't know how you feel about this opinion on the matter or whether it will disqualify me but it's how I feel."
dawn5651
(601 posts)NNadir
(33,368 posts)...if we spent the money to get a right to kill this ass on things like good nutrition, good homes for those who lack them.
Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez - the latter was operating where I lived at the time with my young wife - and, I'm sure many similar others died in prison rather than be executed.
I'm sure their lives were suitably miserable, if the only thing we care about is revenge.
Peterson will die in prison in any case, why spend a zillion dollars to make it happen faster?
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,043 posts)The only thing they are retrying is the penalty phase of the trial. Just let him to in jail in the general population. As someone who killed his wife and unborn son, I'm sure he'll be popular with the other inmates.