You said: "While I am convinced that Scott Peterson did kill Laci and her unborn child as he lied frequently on multiple occasions and didn't respond like an innocent man ..."

Certainly not innocent of adultery, and no doubt that will haunt him for the rest of his life, but the only explanation for the actual evidence in this case is that Laci fell into the hands of a woman who wanted to steal her baby. Ignore all crazy theories and look at two facts not in dispute:

According to the state's own pathologist, Dr Brian Peterson, Laci's body had caffeine in it. Laci was avoiding caffeine as she was pregnant. Also, her underwear was worn out completely in back but not at all in the front. This is a wear pattern which is seen in worn out underwear - underwear which has been worn over a long period.

So:
Why did Laci's body have caffeine in it?
Why were Laci's underpants completely worn out in the seat?

The only explanation that can be offered that fits the Scott is guilty theories is that Scott got up that morning and told Laci that he had decided he didn't want to be married so he was going to kill her, so, although she was avoiding caffeine because of the baby, she might as well have a last cup of coffee. Then she replied that in that case there was no point in her wearing her good underwear so she might as well get an old pair out of the scrap clothes hamper and wear those instead. But she also asked him to be sure he dumped her with her Croton diamond watch and her antique diamond earrings since, as she liked to say, she wouldn't want to be caught dead without them.

Sound reasonable?
A Voice of Sanity | Email | Homepage | 03.14.08 - 10:37 pm | #

I was always agaisnt the death penalty, strongly opposed, however there came a time when I became a mother, and I realised something about my own judgement.

If my child, my beautiful little girl was killed, taken away and butchered, would I her mother, still be opposed to the death penalty. Im sure I would not be.

Sometimes we change our opinion on something when certain situations are changed.

Would you still be opposed to something as strongly as you are, when it affects you??

As a christian lady I dont think I could actually be for the death penalty if my child was involved in such a crime as i hypothetically listed above.

It isnt in my heart, of course I would be to begin with however as my anger would diminish I would come to the logical conclusion that taking another persons life will not make things any easier, it wont bring the person back, it wont close the door on the whole affair.

A life in prison to suffer in a cell is far more of an adequate punishment than that of death.
anon | Email | Homepage | 04.22.07 - 4:17 am | #

If a person is a monster and society Never wants them joining them ever again, considers them a Menace - I think it is inhumane to keep the person locked in a tiny room for years upon years. This may sound heartless but it's a waste of resources that mentally and emotionally "functioning" people could use.
But DO BE SURE there is enough legal evidence against them. (We put killer dogs to sleep...)
As for Scott Peterson - and I could really care less about the man - but WHAT is the evidence against him? While I didn't follow the case, I do know the facts and I simply am perplexed at how they found him guilty. I don't see any evidence against him at all. Not CRIME evidence. Just jerk/bad husband evidence. Hmmmm...
Charle | Email | Homepage | 07.09.06 - 6:51 am | #

I agree with Cali. It´s also the only reason I have against the death penalty: Just one innocent man put to death is one too many for me.
ciara | Email | Homepage | 12.15.04 - 8:31 am | #

I appreciate this post VERY much. For once, someone agrees with me in that in order to find a man/woman guilty, you MUST have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. This whole 'circumstanual evidence' stuff is just crap. I, too, think he is guilty. But I'd rather one guilty man go free than 1 innocent man get sentenced to death for a crime he never committed. This bothers me. This bothers me greatly.

Great post!
Cali | Email | Homepage | 12.15.04 - 12:19 am | #

The main reason I don't support the death penalty is because I believe that people who kill have a physical problem of some sort that medicine hasn't yet discovered. Whether it is a genetic flaw, or an imbalance -- or a brain defect -- something is off in these people.

We don't kill people with cancer, or AIDS -- and we shouldn't kill people who are sick enough to kill.
Fredette | Email | Homepage | 12.14.04 - 12:08 pm | #

I actually support the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt (like DNA evidence in certain settings), but i agree that without absolute certainty it is barbaric. If you were in jail for life, could you still read, write, eat, exercise, shower, and blog? then that punishment hardly fits the crime in my opinion.
charles | Email | Homepage | 12.14.04 - 11:41 am | #

I could not agree with you more. I was always on the fence regarding the death penalty. Several years after it was released, I watched Dead Man Walking and it changed my mind forever. The justice system needs a huge overhaul.
Pam | Email | Homepage | 12.14.04 - 7:52 am | #

Who has the right to kill anyone? Being on a jury and sentence someone to death is in a way the same thing as actually killing someone. How can they live with themselves afterwards? No matter if Scott Peterson did kill Laci or not, and if he did it's so wrong, no one has the right to kill him. That is murder too!
And what does this say about the USA? A so called civilized country has death sentence!? It just doesn't make sence!
Ida | Email | Homepage | 12.13.04 - 6:19 pm | #