I have to admit I pretty much cheered when I first heard that Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for killing his eight-month-pregnant wife.
Call me a cruel and inhuman human, but a part of me likes knowing that some jurisdictions in the world still aren't afraid to give back to murderers what they gave to their victims. It's my ultimate revenge fantasy, lived out by proxy.
It bothers me immensely that we live in a world where victims can be repeatedly victimized by criminals, but those same criminals can go to prison and get a degree. I know I'm oversimplifying, but the unfairness of crime and punishment in today's society is enough to make most of us law-abiding folks nauseous.
So where do you stand? What do you think we should do with the likes of Mr. Peterson? How can victims be treated more fairly in the eyes of the law?
Posts
A new adventure
7 hours ago
12 comments:
I was sitting in my car listening to the radio when they broke in and announced that Scott Peterson was sentenced to death. I instantly said "YES!"
After a moment I was kind of appalled with myself for getting excited about someone being sentenced to death.
I think it does have a lot to do with the remorse factor. Every single account that I have heard about Scott Peterson has him coming across as a cold hearted, unremorseful, unemotional S.O.B. I wonder if I would feel the same if he showed remorse and/or emotion? I don't think I would.
I take some issue with defining criminal justice in terms of victims. I don't believe that the criminal justice system should consult, or in fact care about the victim. It isn't the criminal system's job to redress victim imbalances, to provide 'closure' to victims, or anything else.
The function of the criminal justice systems is to punish people for transgressions. Under our system (I lump Canada and the US together in
this), the criminal is supposedly punished for the intent: the difference between first and second degree murder is intent.
I realize that what I'm saying is a touch heretical, but think about it. It follows from what Wheelson said. If you punish people based on the impact of the crime, you'll be hanging people for careless driving if they should happen to hit a schoolbus, and letting people off if
they happen to murder someone that nobody cares about.
I'm pro-death penalty, but purely as a practical matter. There is a certain type of person who will kill again if they are ever released. This, in turn, means that we will be faced with incarcerating them until they day they die, and it seems to me that a rope is a whole lot cheaper.
Scott Peterson is probably one of those people, and my personal opinion is that he should die. Not because of the impact on his victims, but because he deliberately and coldly planned and carried
out a murder.
The criminal justice system can never eliminate crime. It is impossible. The best that it can hope to do is to keep it down to a
manageable level, and in the Canada, at least, the criminal justice system is doing a reasonable job given that our rate of violent crime
is on the low side as developed countries go.
Capital punishment. As we know that is not legal in Canada any longer. but in the U.S. it is used as punishment and deterrence. We'll show you we can kill people so YOU won't kill people.
double standard there.
The Punishment fits the crime. He killed an unborn child and his wife while he cheated with another who already had a child? what goes there ?? he's a sicko. I saw his mistress on Oprah the other day.
The U.S. justice system needs an overhaul. Death row is packed with men and women waiting to die in the appeals process ( i am from the US originally) in Florida the death process is Prime time news casts. They love to show frying people. it is a NEWS event in Florida where I am from.
He should die !! and sooner than later. that's my take on the sicko.
jeremy
montreal
As in everything else, I feel like the criminal justice system is filled with politics and beaurocracy. Money, race, celebrity, can all place an impact on the actual punishment one gets.
I also agree with Dean regarding "intent". The difference between the cruelty of an offender is often times whether or not he had intent. Intent is a difficult thing to prove but not impossible with today's technology.
I'm Glad Peterson was found guilty and sentenced to death. He clearly intended to kill his wife, had no remorse for doing so, and continued to lie even to a woman he supposedly wanted to be with. For that trial to continue any further would simply be beating a dead horse. enough said, no appeals. done.
I disagree (and apparently I'm alone on this). Maybe because I'm viewing this from a unique perspective: I never read news or watch any commercial televison (thanks TeVo) and only learned about the case from these comments.
Apparently everyone is of one mind: and is glad about the execution of some person who killed one other person whom everyone knows well enough because the media they have read or watched would never use something like this to up their numbers.
Sounds like a pile of rocks outside the city gates would quickly find its way into the hands of you and your readers. Linch him, they shouted. Hang him, they shouted. Nail him to the cross, they shouted.
They, the lemmings who opine brazenly about things they've been told to believe by the talking heads they consider clerics.
Sorry, I'm not a fan of the death penalty. I find politics, emotion and public pressure can influence the result. Much the same as a sanctioned lynch mob. Plus I don't think either justice system in either country has enough of a track record to guarantee that every person on death row is in fact guilty.
Finally, if you believe that suicide is a cop out from facing things (as I do), then the death penalty can be viewed as much the same. Its an easy out instead of years of punishment and reflection on his heinous crime. Remember Carmi, if we had it here, Milgaard would already be dead.
To murder someone is simply the most unjust act on Earth. No one has the right to take another individual's life. However, if they do the act and get caught, they know ahead of time what's at risk: The loss of their own life. How is that barbaric? In truth, I am troubled by georacial and financial inconsistencies across the country that result in varying standards and rulings. But I still feel that one is making an informed choice if one intentionally murders another person. If you don't want to be executed, don't kill. It works for me.
I don't support the death penalty, but not for moral reasons or even anything remotely like "well, murder is wrong, so..."
I have 2 main reasons: it costs far more to take a person from conviction to execution that it does to simply lock them away for life, and once a person is executed, they can't be brought back if somehow it turns out that they were, in fact, innocent.
I don't know the exact statistics, but I seem to remember reading not too long ago that it's now up to 115 people on death row were proven innocent by DNA evidence over the last 5 years or so...?
Lock 'em up, throw away the key, but be prepared to hire a locksmith some day, because you just never really know...
I am for capital punishment, if it fits the crime. I have a hard time with the idea of someone raping and murdering innocent people - CHILDREN - and then living comfortably the rest of their lives. I'm over-simplifing, too, I know. If prisons were different than they are I might change my mind, but the truth is that while they are locked up, they can watch TV, exercise, read, earn a degree, and even in some cases work and earn money. I know it seems cruel, but using our tax dollars to give them all these luxuries (and I think that if you killed someone, these certainly should be considered luxuries!) is ridiculous.
I don't agree with capital punishment. It doesn't seem to deter anyone. Look at the growing prison population. It means that as a citizen of the state that I'm responsible for murder. It strikes me as the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
I heard once, and I'd be very interested to see some statistics, that it costs more to keep someone on death row due to legal wrangling and appeals than it does to imprison them for life.
And, I hate it when people talk about the luxuries of prison. "Omigod, they get to watch TV!" Yes, unable to leave, unable to piss unwatched, unable to walk without escort, surrounded by people who care nothing for them, who would kill them or assault them any moment.
People used to talk about prison rehabilitation. I don't know if it works, but the punishment angle certainly doesn't seem to.
Here's a thought. Since we know a life of poverty informs most of these people, how about we work on that? No? (I know, Scott P wasn't poor. The exception, not the rule.) Then by all means build more prisons and kill more people. Sounds like great social policy to me.
I have thought about the death penalty now for over 20 years (I am 46). Despite this, I am no further towards forming an opinion than I was in my early 20's. I believe in the need for a deterrent to extreme violence however I do know that our justice system is flawed and it would be better to let everyone live than to condemn an innocent person. Maybe the violence has more to do with our society in general. Other countries do not seem to have many of the problems we do. Hollywood, gun ownership, neglect of children for the pursuit of careers, etc. Our modern society has it's drawbacks as well. I really don't know. I am glad there are people, far more educated than I, who are willing and working to resolve this very difficult issue. We are not the compassionate nation we used to be. That is for sure.
Post a Comment