Pretty white people get press, because apparently pretty white people are extremely interesting. Don't you think so? Don't you think pretty white people are extremely interesting?
Pretty white people are only interesting when they're in porn, and even then just asthetically.
Anyway, i really dont care bout either, but i dont think we can judge on the death penalty yet. I think prison sohuld be for recouperation, but when that fails the death penalty should be an option.
I wasn't sure for the first one, so I figured yes
The second one; Chances are he did, it, yes.
And he deserves to die, although my treatment would be to put him on a cross and throw stones at him. Death is just too damn quick, and painless.
He killed two people because he was a selfish cunt, end of.
well he was found guilty. so obviously the first answer is Yes. thats a no brainer.
The second question is only guess work, because unless you were there watching you can only guess. but in this case since he was found guilty i would lean towards "yes" on it also
and i also put "Yes" for the third, eye for an eye. it was a sick and disgusting crime the person guilty of it doesnt need to live
[ QUOTE ]
well he was found guilty. so obviously the first answer is Yes. thats a no brainer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. The jury obviously felt there was enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean everyone here agrees with the jury. I didn't vote because I haven't been following the case and am not particularly interested.
It has gotten so much attention because at first it was a pregant women (with her first child) who was missing at christmas. It then got even more attention when the husband was shown to be having an affair, and there was a chance he did it. It has nothing to do with them being an attractive white couple, you hippys.
I like how a lot of people put no for the first one, then yes for the second. There is no doubt in my mind that he did the crime, but if the court does not have enough evidence then he shouldn't be convicted.
"Was the evidence enough to convict Peterson beyond a reasonable doubt" he was convicted, so yes there was enough evidence to convict him.. even if there was zero evidence, and he was convicted.. then aparently zero was enough to convict him. doesnt matter if the evidence was good or not it was still enough to convict him. kinda like the old question, "what weighs more a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers"
Your argument implies that a jury is infallible, which simply isn't true. People are wrongfully convicted all the time, and NO amount of evidence is enough to convict an innocent man, for obvious reasons. We already know the jury's opinion, but the question was posed to you (and anyone else participating in the poll), whose opinion could very well differ from that of the jury. Your argument that "well, he was found guilty so obviously there was enough evidence" is utterly ridiculous. The jury believed there was enough evidence to convict him, but they're not the ones participating in this poll.
"The second one; Chances are he did, it, yes.
And he deserves to die"
I am all for capital punishment, but to throw the switch because chances are he did it?
Now, I dont know this case so obviously I cant make an informed decision, but that thought process is just scary.And, just to reiterate.....I do believe in an eye for aneye.
Given there was no real concrete evidence that he did it, I don't support the death penalty in this case...I've always been really careful about the death penalty. Absolute certainty of guilt is important for me.
I personally do think he did it though, although I don't think there was sufficient evidence from what I've seen of the case (and I've only had passive interest in it) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. All that I think of the case is that there is good reason to be incredibly suspicious of Peterson, but not complete certainty.
Mojo, your argument is a fallacy, but I think Keyser explained it well.
Why people can let an obvious murderer off and only deliberate the evidence in an hour and find the defendent 'not' quilty is beyond me.
The Pettersen case complexed me because there was hardly any evidence other then motive, hearsay, and conjecture...no forensic evidence of how the body was transported or where Lacy Peterson was killed.
Yet OJ had a shitload of forensic evidence....and not all of it found by Ferman.....or a so called incompetent forensic evidence collector.
By the way, DNA only degrades. It does not become someone elses DNA...it's either your DNA or not your DNA.
If people trust finger prints, why can't they trust DNA?
And I don't believe cops set people up for murder....at least not 2 dozen or so at the sametime.
I know some people who went in full tilt to watch the evidence and trial were 100% of Peterson's guilt. Now as the thing sewed up their conclusions were mixed that really the DA had no tough evidence, actually none. Other than Peterson fishing in the same area where his wife was found.
Certain features about that stupid little boat and stuff were suppressed by the judge and this case is going to get a re-trial easy.
While some think he did not do it. Well I think perhaps he did do it, but what really disturbs me, and what made me prick up my ears, is a person may be sentenced to death without any REAL evidence. What is this country coming to?
Dr Lee who was an official spokesman on Court TV addressed the thing like this: The Jury can view this from a logical side and evaluate the evidence, which did not exist, or they can pick to judge it by their emotional side or how they feel, which is what they did.
I still think Peterson knew more about his wife's death, but as far as actually doing it I don't know, apparently being caught as a blatant Liar and being caught in adultery in this country seems to be just cause to = a Murderer.
Makes me wonder how O.J. got off........shakes head.
I have followed this case from the beginning, and JUST from the evidence that has been leaked to the press, there was no doubt in my mind that he did it. None at all.
As far as the death penalty, I think anyone who kills their wife and baby deserve it. Either way, he's going to get the death penalty, if either by the painless lethal injection, or by the brutal rape and murder in prison. In fact I hope they don't give him the DP. The second way of punishement sounds more fitting.
Pretty boy like Peterson won't last six months in prison.
John what evidence? I fail to see any. I am not saying he did not do it, or had a part in it, I am just saying show me the evidence? None exists other than he was acting like an ahole, not showing up to search for his wife, banging Amber on the side, giving horrid interviews, hanging out with hookers/dancers, and so forth. But the DA failed to provde a murder weapon, motive, actual connection to Peterson dumping her body, any real witnesses or blood/dna.
Being a social scumbag and immoral person does not mean you should be automatically guilty of murder. I am saying if he did it, & real evidence supports that claim, then I will pay for the bullets to kill him. But the scales of justice have been compromised by people who FEEL he is guilty.
Replies
I never understood why this case gets so much press. What is special about them? Is it because they are(ah, were) good looking?
#3- No.
Anyway, i really dont care bout either, but i dont think we can judge on the death penalty yet. I think prison sohuld be for recouperation, but when that fails the death penalty should be an option.
I voted: yes; yes; yes.
I wasn't sure for the first one, so I figured yes
The second one; Chances are he did, it, yes.
And he deserves to die, although my treatment would be to put him on a cross and throw stones at him. Death is just too damn quick, and painless.
He killed two people because he was a selfish cunt, end of.
The second question is only guess work, because unless you were there watching you can only guess. but in this case since he was found guilty i would lean towards "yes" on it also
and i also put "Yes" for the third, eye for an eye. it was a sick and disgusting crime the person guilty of it doesnt need to live
well he was found guilty. so obviously the first answer is Yes. thats a no brainer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily. The jury obviously felt there was enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean everyone here agrees with the jury. I didn't vote because I haven't been following the case and am not particularly interested.
I like how a lot of people put no for the first one, then yes for the second. There is no doubt in my mind that he did the crime, but if the court does not have enough evidence then he shouldn't be convicted.
And he deserves to die"
I am all for capital punishment, but to throw the switch because chances are he did it?
Now, I dont know this case so obviously I cant make an informed decision, but that thought process is just scary.And, just to reiterate.....I do believe in an eye for aneye.
I personally do think he did it though, although I don't think there was sufficient evidence from what I've seen of the case (and I've only had passive interest in it) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. All that I think of the case is that there is good reason to be incredibly suspicious of Peterson, but not complete certainty.
Mojo, your argument is a fallacy, but I think Keyser explained it well.
2. Maybe...
3. And lower myself to his level? Shit no...
Why people can let an obvious murderer off and only deliberate the evidence in an hour and find the defendent 'not' quilty is beyond me.
The Pettersen case complexed me because there was hardly any evidence other then motive, hearsay, and conjecture...no forensic evidence of how the body was transported or where Lacy Peterson was killed.
Yet OJ had a shitload of forensic evidence....and not all of it found by Ferman.....or a so called incompetent forensic evidence collector.
By the way, DNA only degrades. It does not become someone elses DNA...it's either your DNA or not your DNA.
If people trust finger prints, why can't they trust DNA?
And I don't believe cops set people up for murder....at least not 2 dozen or so at the sametime.
Like I said, I'm still getting over OJ.
NEUMAN: Sure, sure...one more question?
SIMPSON: Okay.
NEUMAN: It's a big question, actually it's the big question. I was going to open the interview with this one...
SIMPSON: Yeah...
NEUMAN: Well, I want to know, and I bet all of America wants to know...
SIMPSON: What? Did I kill my wife? No. I did not kill my wife.
NEUMAN: What? What do you mean, you didn't kill your wife?
SIMPSON: That's what I said. I did not kill my wife. I did not kill Nicole.
NEUMAN: Nicole? Who's Nicole? What the hell are you talking about?
SIMPSON: Huh? What do you mean?
NEUMAN: Who is Nicole? Is that your wife?
SIMPSON: Are you trying to be funny?
NEUMAN: No. Are you? What's all this stuff about killing your wife? And who's Nicole? I never asked you anything about that? Are you all right?
SIMPSON: If you're trying to be funny, you're not. Look, man, I've got to go...
(Simpson stands up, and so do I.)
NEUMAN: Okay, then I guess I'll be going, too...I'll let you know where and when this thing'll run...
(He walks me to the door.)
SIMPSON: I want a tape of this. And I want final approval on any article.
NEUMAN: That wasn't what we agreed on. Just the tape.
SIMPSON: I don't care. I didn't like some of the things you said.
NEUMAN: What did I say? Did I say anything bad?
SIMPSON: I'll be the judge of that.
(Simpson extends his hand.)
SIMPSON: Good bye.
NEUMAN: Nice meeting you, O.J.
(We shake hands and I head for the door.)
SIMPSON: Don't cross me on this.
NEUMAN: I don't know what you mean, but, sure, whatever you say.
(I walk out as Simpson closes the door behind me.)
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.mattneuman.com/ojinterv.htm
Certain features about that stupid little boat and stuff were suppressed by the judge and this case is going to get a re-trial easy.
While some think he did not do it. Well I think perhaps he did do it, but what really disturbs me, and what made me prick up my ears, is a person may be sentenced to death without any REAL evidence. What is this country coming to?
Dr Lee who was an official spokesman on Court TV addressed the thing like this: The Jury can view this from a logical side and evaluate the evidence, which did not exist, or they can pick to judge it by their emotional side or how they feel, which is what they did.
I still think Peterson knew more about his wife's death, but as far as actually doing it I don't know, apparently being caught as a blatant Liar and being caught in adultery in this country seems to be just cause to = a Murderer.
Makes me wonder how O.J. got off........shakes head.
As far as the death penalty, I think anyone who kills their wife and baby deserve it. Either way, he's going to get the death penalty, if either by the painless lethal injection, or by the brutal rape and murder in prison. In fact I hope they don't give him the DP. The second way of punishement sounds more fitting.
Pretty boy like Peterson won't last six months in prison.
Being a social scumbag and immoral person does not mean you should be automatically guilty of murder. I am saying if he did it, & real evidence supports that claim, then I will pay for the bullets to kill him. But the scales of justice have been compromised by people who FEEL he is guilty.