If capital punishment is abolished in California

[margaritaville]

What would happen to DRI Scott? Would he be moved into general population?

Just curious what you all thought...

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/1101/calif_ap.html

[Buckethead]

Would I like to see him moved to general population? YES.

If his sentence was commuted to LWOP, he would not be moved to GP, most likely, he'd be kept in protective custody.

MOO

What would happen to DRI Scott? Would he be moved into general population?

Just curious what you all thought...

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/1101/calif_ap.html

[margaritaville]

Would I like to see him moved to general population? YES.

If his sentence was commuted to LWOP, he would not be moved to GP, most likely, he'd be kept in protective custody.

MOO


I would love to see him in GP too...

I wonder how long he would last?

[I'mSun]

I would love to see him in GP too...

I wonder how long he would last?He wouldn't last the day. The inmates don't like him either. Most likely he would be transfered to Corcoran and placed in protective custody.

[hankfromthebank]

I'd like to see California abolish the death sentence, the day after Mr Peterson is executed and Scott knows that he is the last one to give his life for justice. . :shrug:

[Invrdv8]

He wouldn't last the day. The inmates don't like him either. Most likely he would be transfered to Corcoran and placed in protective custody.

He probably would be put in protective custody no matter where is so as long as he's already in SQ why wouldn't they just leave him there? What would be the purpose of transferring him to another facility? :confused:

[Lavindar]

He wouldn't last the day. The inmates don't like him either. Most likely he would be transfered to Corcoran and placed in protective custody.

YOu are correct. Corcoran is the only prison that has a PHU - Scott would be in with the most famous of the famous, Charles Manson. Somehow that makes me feel good.

Scot is a baby killer. Even prisoners have children. He will never be in GP to suffer the justice given to baby killers.

[Lavindar]

He probably would be put in protective custody no matter where is so as long as he's already in SQ why wouldn't they just leave him there? What would be the purpose of transferring him to another facility? :confused:


There is no protective housing unit at San Quentin.

[Invrdv8]

There is no protective housing unit at San Quentin.

Hmmmm...didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

[I'mSun]

He probably would be put in protective custody no matter where is so as long as he's already in SQ why wouldn't they just leave him there? What would be the purpose of transferring him to another facility? :confused:SQ doesn't have a Protective Housing Unit.
I'd much rather see him get tossed into the GP at SQ, but I doubt that would happen.

[Invrdv8]

SQ doesn't have a Protective Housing Unit.
I'd much rather see him get tossed into the GP at SQ, but I doubt that would happen.

Thanks, Lavindar already let me know there is no PHU and SQ. I agree about putting Scott into the GP. I'd like him to have to watch his back every single minute of every single day until his appeals are exhausted and his sentence is carried out. :D

[Buckethead]

I would love to see him in GP too...

I wonder how long he would last?

Well.... If I was a betting buckethead, I'd say 3 to 6 months, max.

[accordn2me]

I'd like to see California abolish the death sentence, the day after Mr Peterson is executed and Scott knows that he is the last one to give his life for justice. . :shrug:Great post! ITA.....except for the part about CA abolishing the ds... :biggrin:

[sunbeam]

Would I like to see him moved to general population? YES.

If his sentence was commuted to LWOP, he would not be moved to GP, most likely, he'd be kept in protective custody.

MOO
I hope your right! That would be great if his sentence was commuted to LWOP, and good if he was then kept in protective custody. But... even better if he got a new trial and was released!

[sunbeam]

Great post! ITA.....except for the part about CA abolishing the ds... :biggrin:
I'm hoping California does abolish the death penalty.

[TopGunner]

I hope your right! That would be great if his sentence was commuted to LWOP, and good if he was then kept in protective custody. But... even better if he got a new trial and was released!


Whatever.......:rolleyes:

[Wearing A Halo]

I hope your right! That would be great if his sentence was commuted to LWOP, and good if he was then kept in protective custody. But... even better if he got a new trial and was released!

Yep, that would be great! Have you considered the quality of living on DR vs. PHU? It would be interesting to see how DRISP would adjust to getting to know other people (prisoners).:eek:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

He would be treated the same as Charles Manson who once was waiting execution.

imo

[margaritaville]

I hope your right! That would be great if his sentence was commuted to LWOP, and good if he was then kept in protective custody. But... even better if he got a new trial and was released!

It would be intresting to watch him get a new trial and get convicted all over again...

Very intresting!

[Lili007]

Thanks, Lavindar already let me know there is no PHU and SQ. I agree about putting Scott into the GP. I'd like him to have to watch his back every single minute of every single day until his appeals are exhausted and his sentence is carried out. :D

May I second that? :D

JMO

[Lavindar]

He would be treated the same as Charles Manson who once was waiting execution.

imo


Apparently Sunbeam isn't familiar with Corcoron and it's PHU. PHU prisoners get one hour a day outside in individual specially-built cages for their protection. So they are caged ALL the time.

As for the site where Sunbeam likes to reside--I don't go there because there aren't enough showers in the world to wash off that filth from my mind and body. Guess it's easy for someone who IS NOT A US CITIZEN to attempt to influence citizens of this country. Let them start a petition - oh wait, they can't - they aren't citizens. I say we send ALL our death row prisoners to their towns in Canada and let them deal with it since they are so in love with those sickos.

[Lili007]

Apparently Sunbeam isn't familiar with Corcoron and it's PHU. PHU prisoners get one hour a day outside in individual specially-built cages for their protection. So they are caged ALL the time.

As for the site where Sunbeam likes to reside--I don't go there because there aren't enough showers in the world to wash off that filth from my mind and body. Guess it's easy for someone who IS NOT A US CITIZEN to attempt to influence citizens of this country. Let them start a petition - oh wait, they can't - they aren't citizens. I say we send ALL our death row prisoners to their towns in Canada and let them deal with it since they are so in love with those sickos.

Ohhh... I hope you don't include me in that... I'm not a US citizen, I'm an Aussie and proud of it. In my lay opinion, your laws are a lot harsher than ours - as they should be. I can't understand why someone who systematically murderes several people can get "life" without parole and then get to come out after 30 years or so. There's no DP in Australia, so "life" means a long time in jail. The most notorious child molester and killer is supposed to get out soon. Except the government has commuted the sentence to a 'never be released'.

I don't hold with the DP, but like I said before... I can understand it being used in some cases, though I will never "like" or "approve" of it.

As for Sunbeam - I wish she were a "sunbeam", wherever she posts from... But to each their own, as I always say.

I wish the victims had as many and as vocal supporters. Well, I suppose they do - to an extent? :) :rose: Not nearly enough though, IMO.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Apparently Sunbeam isn't familiar with Corcoron and it's PHU. PHU prisoners get one hour a day outside in individual specially-built cages for their protection. So they are caged ALL the time.

As for the site where Sunbeam likes to reside--I don't go there because there aren't enough showers in the world to wash off that filth from my mind and body. Guess it's easy for someone who IS NOT A US CITIZEN to attempt to influence citizens of this country. Let them start a petition - oh wait, they can't - they aren't citizens. I say we send ALL our death row prisoners to their towns in Canada and let them deal with it since they are so in love with those sickos.

Come to think of it there are alot of posters posting from Canada on the SP boards. Some complain about our judicial system, some complain about our death penalty and most of them insist Scott is innocent. Is there nothing in Canada that needs "fixing"?

[Lavindar]

Ohhh... I hope you don't include me in that... I'm not a US citizen, I'm an Aussie and proud of it. In my lay opinion, your laws are a lot harsher than ours - as they should be. I can't understand why someone who systematically murderes several people can get "life" without parole and then get to come out after 30 years or so. There's no DP in Australia, so "life" means a long time in jail. The most notorious child molester and killer is supposed to get out soon. Except the government has commuted the sentence to a 'never be released'.

I don't hold with the DP, but like I said before... I can understand it being used in some cases, though I will never "like" or "approve" of it.

As for Sunbeam - I wish she were a "sunbeam", wherever she posts from... But to each their own, as I always say.

I wish the victims had as many and as vocal supporters. Well, I suppose they do - to an extent? :) :rose: Not nearly enough though, IMO.

JMO When Manson was given the death penalty, there was no Life Without Parole. So he was given the next highest sentence. Life. That means he's up for parole every 7 years (I think).

NOW, however, there is a Life WITHOUT parole and it's the next sentence to death so that is the harshest sentence they can give short of death. So if death is abolished atain, that's what Scott would get.
'
One thing I do not understand is that why people who formerly had the death penalty are not reinstated to death when the voters voted to reinstate it.

I know Charles Manson is perfectly content with his life inprison. He's be in jails or prisons for over half his life. HE's totally "institutionalized"

[Lili007]

When Manson was given the death penalty, there was no Life Without Parole. So he was given the next highest sentence. Life. That means he's up for parole every 7 years (I think).

NOW, however, there is a Life WITHOUT parole and it's the next sentence to death so that is the harshest sentence they can give short of death. So if death is abolished atain, that's what Scott would get.
'
One thing I do not understand is that why people who formerly had the death penalty are not reinstated to death when the voters voted to reinstate it.

I know Charles Manson is perfectly content with his life inprison. He's be in jails or prisons for over half his life. HE's totally "institutionalized"

That's interesting - do the "lifers" get to continue on within the old laws, or does their sentence now REALLY mean LWOP?

As to Manson, I wouldn't be at all surprised if his dearest wish is to be in prison and notorious for the rest of his natural life, IMO.

The thing is that I've watched some documentaries on CI Australia and have been astonished at the sentencing. The Snowtown Murders, as they're called - several people were involved in killing and mutilating their victims for their social security checks. Some got off with a light sentence, some are supposed to be serving "life", but who knows what that means?

Another horrific case involves a totally evil individual who took pleasure in murdering back-packers in one of the forests near Sydney. His smirk hurts my eyes and insults my soul every time I see it on the news or in documentaries. He seemed not to only enjoy what he did, but to be delighted of the notoriety and thumbing his nose at being caught. Ivan Milat. If anyone could ever make Scott Peterson look like a 'choir boy', it would be him, IMO.

Anyway, back to DRISP - I don't see why he should be afforded the privilege of protection from the "GP"... He told Amber that he had "lost" his wife, then lo and behold, two weeks later she really was. Not "lost", but murdered by her "loving" husband.

IMO, he thought he was "loving" at the time - certainly not Laci or her baby, his new interest was Amber.

I call Conner Laci's baby because I don't think he ever thought of Conner as anything more than an emotional and financial burden, and an impediment to the pursuit of his fantasies. I don't think he was capable of thinking or caring about anyone or anything beyond his next dose of Viagra and whom he could charm and impress with it, while he wooed them with stories of fishing trips in Maine, new year's in Paris, artificial starlights on the ceiling, roses, rented suits, champagne, Santa hats and... BS.

The "great coat" poem ruse to Amber, his frequent trips in as many different cars he could get his hands on at various times to go to SF Bay... But I, personally, come back to one thing that defines this. He told Amber he lost his wife. And she was, only a short time later. To be found mutilated where her dear husband went "fishing" for the first time in his new boat that no-one knew about.

When he sobbed on her shoulder, he never told Amber that his wife whom he "Lost" was pregnant with his child and almost ready to give birth. I don't think Amber would have liked or accepted that at all, IMO.

Just My Opinion, as always.

[Invrdv8]

When Manson was given the death penalty, there was no Life Without Parole. So he was given the next highest sentence. Life. That means he's up for parole every 7 years (I think).

NOW, however, there is a Life WITHOUT parole and it's the next sentence to death so that is the harshest sentence they can give short of death. So if death is abolished atain, that's what Scott would get.
'
One thing I do not understand is that why people who formerly had the death penalty are not reinstated to death when the voters voted to reinstate it.

I know Charles Manson is perfectly content with his life inprison. He's be in jails or prisons for over half his life. HE's totally "institutionalized"

If they can give the next harshest sentence when the harshest sentence is abolished it doesn't make sense that once the harshest sentence was reinstated the inmate wouldn't go back to the original sentence.

Not too long ago they had an old piece on TV of an interview that was done with Manson when he was much younger. That guy was/is a real nut case!!!!! I don't believe there will ever be a parol board that will let him out on the streets again.

[Invrdv8]

Snipped
Anyway, back to DRISP - I don't see why he should be afforded the privilege of protection from the "GP"...

Just My Opinion, as always.

Being protected may be a "privilege" for Scott, but it's the responsibility of SQ to protect certain inmates from other prisoners. Even prisoners in SQ don't take kindly to men who kill babies. Or they want the prestige of doing in an inmate who received a lot of notoriety because of the crime he committed. I think they feel it gives them more clout with the other inmates.

JMO

[Lili007]

Being protected may be a "privilege" for Scott, but it's the responsibility of SQ to protect certain inmates from other prisoners. Even prisoners in SQ don't take kindly to men who kill babies. Or they want the prestige of doing in an inmate who received a lot of notoriety because of the crime he committed. I think they feel it gives them more clout with the other inmates.

JMO

Thanks for stating the obvious. One can never do that too many times. I do it all the time, myself.

JMO

[enlightenme]

That's interesting - do the "lifers" get to continue on within the old laws, or does their sentence now REALLY mean LWOP?

As to Manson, I wouldn't be at all surprised if his dearest wish is to be in prison and notorious for the rest of his natural life, IMO.

The thing is that I've watched some documentaries on CI Australia and have been astonished at the sentencing. The Snowtown Murders, as they're called - several people were involved in killing and mutilating their victims for their social security checks. Some got off with a light sentence, some are supposed to be serving "life", but who knows what that means?

Another horrific case involves a totally evil individual who took pleasure in murdering back-packers in one of the forests near Sydney. His smirk hurts my eyes and insults my soul every time I see it on the news or in documentaries. He seemed not to only enjoy what he did, but to be delighted of the notoriety and thumbing his nose at being caught. Ivan Milat. If anyone could ever make Scott Peterson look like a 'choir boy', it would be him, IMO.

Anyway, back to DRISP - I don't see why he should be afforded the privilege of protection from the "GP"... He told Amber that he had "lost" his wife, then lo and behold, two weeks later she really was. Not "lost", but murdered by her "loving" husband.

IMO, he thought he was "loving" at the time - certainly not Laci or her baby, his new interest was Amber.

I call Conner Laci's baby because I don't think he ever thought of Conner as anything more than an emotional and financial burden, and an impediment to the pursuit of his fantasies. I don't think he was capable of thinking or caring about anyone or anything beyond his next dose of Viagra and whom he could charm and impress with it, while he wooed them with stories of fishing trips in Maine, new year's in Paris, artificial starlights on the ceiling, roses, rented suits, champagne, Santa hats and... BS.

The "great coat" poem ruse to Amber, his frequent trips in as many different cars he could get his hands on at various times to go to SF Bay... But I, personally, come back to one thing that defines this. He told Amber he lost his wife. And she was, only a short time later. To be found mutilated where her dear husband went "fishing" for the first time in his new boat that no-one knew about.

When he sobbed on her shoulder, he never told Amber that his wife whom he "Lost" was pregnant with his child and almost ready to give birth. I don't think Amber would have liked or accepted that at all, IMO.

Just My Opinion, as always.


Lili, I think I love you, my Aussie friend! You are so wise and grounded in common sense!

[Invrdv8]

Thanks for stating the obvious. One can never do that too many times. I do it all the time, myself.

JMO

Since you stated you didn't "see why Scott should be afforded the privilege of protection.... " it wasn't "obvious" to me that the why was "obvious" to you. My bad! :)

[Tangerine]

since california has the most congested death row in the country, it practically is already banned in that state. for the most part, i oppose the dp but cannot figure out why dp opposers would chose scott peterson to "save." laci's case is one in which i contradict myself as far as my beliefs go. way deep down, i want him executed, even though i think the dp should be abolished (due to the fear innocents have been executed). he is just evil.

[Lavindar]

since california has the most congested death row in the country, it practically is already banned in that state. for the most part, i oppose the dp but cannot figure out why dp opposers would chose scott peterson to "save." laci's case is one in which i contradict myself as far as my beliefs go. way deep down, i want him executed, even though i think the dp should be abolished (due to the fear innocents have been executed). he is just evil.
I have not found one instance in which an innocent man has been executed in CA. The lengthy appeals process is probably why. There are many innocent men across the country who have been incarcerated and released. I can't recall a single death row incident in CA.

[Luke Davis]

I have not found one instance in which an innocent man has been executed in CA. The lengthy appeals process is probably why. There are many innocent men across the country who have been incarcerated and released. I can't recall a single death row incident in CA.California is in some ways a state of many contradictions. At one time, the Supreme Court routinely reversed death penalty cases. The people voted some of the justices out.

But the state is diverse and in San Francisco, DAs run on a platform they will not seek the death penalty. While in Orange County the opposite is true.

I think it is interesting that if Scott Peterson had confessed to murdering Laci in San Francisco he wouldn't be on death row.

Also, interesting that they changed the location of the trial to a more liberal jurisdiction.

[Lavindar]

California is in some ways a state of many contradictions. At one time, the Supreme Court routinely reversed death penalty cases. The people voted some of the justices out.

But the state is diverse and in San Francisco, DAs run on a platform they will not seek the death penalty. While in Orange County the opposite is true.

I think it is interesting that if Scott Peterson had confessed to murdering Laci in San Francisco he wouldn't be on death row.

Also, interesting that they changed the location of the trial to a more liberal jurisdiction.

Yet they still got the death penalty. Many people think he could have gotten a fair trial in Modesto, too.

[Lili007]

Lili, I think I love you, my Aussie friend! You are so wise and grounded in common sense!

Hi enlightenme! Thank you, my American friend :). I don't think I'm "wise" - just followed this case very closely because it touched me in a way no other has, though it's not the most heinous. I use evidence and logic for my statements. We all do that, but some see it from a different angle and interpret it, or totally dismiss it, from their point of view.

It's always a pleasure posting with people who are of like mind, but I don't shrink from opposition either.

Anyway, you brought a smile to my face this morning, and I'm grateful. Here's one back. :seeya:

Lili

[Lili007]

Since you stated you didn't "see why Scott should be afforded the privilege of protection.... " it wasn't "obvious" to me that the why was "obvious" to you. My bad! :)

Oh, no! I'm sure it was mine! :seeya:

[deputydi]

California is in some ways a state of many contradictions. At one time, the Supreme Court routinely reversed death penalty cases. The people voted some of the justices out.

But the state is diverse and in San Francisco, DAs run on a platform they will not seek the death penalty. While in Orange County the opposite is true.

I think it is interesting that if Scott Peterson had confessed to murdering Laci in San Francisco he wouldn't be on death row.

Also, interesting that they changed the location of the trial to a more liberal jurisdiction.
Boy, you said a mouthful. The 9th Circuit has always worried me -- especially with this case. They seem to be the most unpredictable and liberal of all the appeals courts. I'd like to hear your take on what you think they will do with this one.

ETA: I believe that if Scott had confessed and shown some remorse, no jurisdiction would have sentenced him to death. There would have been no trial had he plead guilty and I believe most judges would have sentenced him to LWOP.

[Tangerine]

I have not found one instance in which an innocent man has been executed in CA. The lengthy appeals process is probably why. There are many innocent men across the country who have been incarcerated and released. I can't recall a single death row incident in CA.

i'm not saying there has been; i just fear the possibility

[deputydi]

i'm not saying there has been; i just fear the possibility
I, too, have mixed feelings on the death penalty. On one hand I believe it is barbaric but on the other hand I fear these murderers getting out one day to kill again. The appeals process is lengthy enough to insure against an innocent man being executed. Not that it couldn't happen -- just that it seems unlikely. I'm not going to stop driving my car because I fear being hit and killed by a drunk driver.

The people released due to the Innocence Project are free because of advances in DNA testing. Almost without exception DNA has proven their convictions erroneous. In these instances, faulty identification put them in prison. That is not the case here. Scott, IMO, is right where he belongs.

When I think of Countries who do not have the death penalty (Canada, for instance), I think of the victims who know the person who brutally murdered their loved one will one day be free to roam the streets. Paul Bernardo immediately comes to mind and the absolute travesty of Karla Homolka's sentence. How can anyone call that justice?

[Lavindar]

I, too, have mixed feelings on the death penalty. On one hand I believe it is barbaric but on the other hand I fear these murderers getting out one day to kill again. The appeals process is lengthy enough to insure against an innocent man being executed. Not that it couldn't happen -- just that it seems unlikely. I'm not going to stop driving my car because I fear being hit and killed by a drunk driver.

The people released due to the Innocence Project are free because of advances in DNA testing. Almost without exception DNA has proven their convictions erroneous. In these instances, faulty identification put them in prison. That is not the case here. Scott, IMO, is right where he belongs.

When I think of Countries who do not have the death penalty (Canada, for instance), I think of the victims who know the person who brutally murdered their loved one will one day be free to roam the streets. Paul Bernardo immediately comes to mind and the absolute travesty of Karla Homolka's sentence. How can anyone call that justice?


ITA. Some people are not human, if you know what I mean. Some people deserve to never breathe a breath of free air.

[Tangerine]

I, too, have mixed feelings on the death penalty. On one hand I believe it is barbaric but on the other hand I fear these murderers getting out one day to kill again. The appeals process is lengthy enough to insure against an innocent man being executed. Not that it couldn't happen -- just that it seems unlikely. I'm not going to stop driving my car because I fear being hit and killed by a drunk driver.

The people released due to the Innocence Project are free because of advances in DNA testing. Almost without exception DNA has proven their convictions erroneous. In these instances, faulty identification put them in prison. That is not the case here. Scott, IMO, is right where he belongs.

When I think of Countries who do not have the death penalty (Canada, for instance), I think of the victims who know the person who brutally murdered their loved one will one day be free to roam the streets. Paul Bernardo immediately comes to mind and the absolute travesty of Karla Homolka's sentence. How can anyone call that justice?


hi deputy. good to be posting with you. i feel as you do about the dp being barbaric on one hand, but fear the release of murderers on the other. i just think that we need to be careful when applying the dp because if the ABA is saying that the system needs to be re-evaluated, then something could be very wrong with it. i understand wanting to get justice for the victims; i want that too. i just dont want to create more victims in trying to do so. this is just my opinion. im not trying to force my ideas on anyone else, just things i think about.

[Lili007]

[QUOTE=Lavindar;9056367]ITA. Some people are not human, IMO... Just victims or their own, or other's exiastence, demands and environments.

I agree.

But that's no excuse for killing other people, especially the most vulnerable, like his own wife pregnant with his baby. It takes a lot of "demand" for a father-to-be to kill his wife and infant son to death and then dispose of of them in the waters.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

hi deputy. good to be posting with you. i feel as you do about the dp being barbaric on one hand, but fear the release of murderers on the other. i just think that we need to be careful when applying the dp because if the ABA is saying that the system needs to be re-evaluated, then something could be very wrong with it. i understand wanting to get justice for the victims; i want that too. i just dont want to create more victims in trying to do so. this is just my opinion. im not trying to force my ideas on anyone else, just things i think about.

I have no problem with the DP. There has to be an ultimate penalty for murderers like Scott. DP inmates have years yet to live before all their appeals are exhausted. That's way more time than they gave any of their victims. Getting a shot and just going to sleep is way more humane I'm sure than how any one of them killed their victim(s). There is, IMO, always someone who's going to find fault with the system no matter what steps are taken to try to improve it. Nothing is perfect.

JMO

[kjb19500]

I don't think the dp is archaic, but I think it should be used very sparingly involving the most heinous cases and only if the evidence used to convict is beyond a doubt (not beyond a reasonable but beyond any doubt.) I also think it should be applied to public officials who violate the public trust, but that's my own personal prejudice.

Re Scott Peterson, I don't see him having much trouble in GP. He's a sociopath and a manipulator, and once he found a "daddy" he'd use his talents and connections to get along quite well. IMO.

[Lavindar]

I don't think the dp is archaic, but I think it should be used very sparingly involving the most heinous cases and only if the evidence used to convict is beyond a doubt (not beyond a reasonable but beyond any doubt.) I also think it should be applied to public officials who violate the public trust, but that's my own personal prejudice.

Re Scott Peterson, I don't see him having much trouble in GP. He's a sociopath and a manipulator, and once he found a "daddy" he'd use his talents and connections to get along quite well. IMO.

But his "high profile" status and the fact that he killed a baby make him fair game for other inmates. I think inmates at SQ said it best - he's a trophy.

Even a "daddy" can't protect him all the time.

[Invrdv8]

But his "high profile" status and the fact that he killed a baby make him fair game for other inmates. I think inmates at SQ said it best - he's a trophy.

Even a "daddy" can't protect him all the time.

I totally agree! :beer:

[deputydi]

I don't think the dp is archaic, but I think it should be used very sparingly involving the most heinous cases and only if the evidence used to convict is beyond a doubt (not beyond a reasonable but beyond any doubt.) I also think it should be applied to public officials who violate the public trust, but that's my own personal prejudice.

Re Scott Peterson, I don't see him having much trouble in GP. He's a sociopath and a manipulator, and once he found a "daddy" he'd use his talents and connections to get along quite well. IMO.
I sometimes think that putting these people to death lowers us to their level. Most civilized countries won't even extradite criminals if the dp is on the board. That, too, angers me. I can't remember his name or most of the details, but recently there was a prof who murdered his girlfriend and fled first to Canada then to France or Germany (I believe). Neither country would extradite him even though he had been convicted in an American court "in abstentia". As long as the dp is an option in America, these holier than thou countries should recognize it as OUR law. They are not being asked to try, convict or sentence these fugitives so how is it they get to say "sorry, we don't like your law so you can't have him/her back".

[Lavindar]

I sometimes think that putting these people to death lowers us to their level. Most civilized countries won't even extradite criminals if the dp is on the board. That, too, angers me. I can't remember his name or most of the details, but recently there was a prof who murdered his girlfriend and fled first to Canada then to France or Germany (I believe). Neither country would extradite him even though he had been convicted in an American court "in abstentia". As long as the dp is an option in America, these holier than thou countries should recognize it as OUR law. They are not being asked to try, convict or sentence these fugitives so how is it they get to say "sorry, we don't like your law so you can't have him/her back".


Ira Einhorn or something like that, I think. And France refused to return him IIRC,

[deputydi]

Ira Einhorn or something like that, I think. And France refused to return him IIRC,
That's the guy! Thanks.

[margaritaville]

I sometimes think that putting these people to death lowers us to their level. Most civilized countries won't even extradite criminals if the dp is on the board. That, too, angers me. I can't remember his name or most of the details, but recently there was a prof who murdered his girlfriend and fled first to Canada then to France or Germany (I believe). Neither country would extradite him even though he had been convicted in an American court "in abstentia". As long as the dp is an option in America, these holier than thou countries should recognize it as OUR law. They are not being asked to try, convict or sentence these fugitives so how is it they get to say "sorry, we don't like your law so you can't have him/her back".

Well I guess that is one less prisoner we (USA) have to pay for while waiting DP.
Let them house them over there, much cheaper for us. I can't believe them wanting a known murderer, but let them keep him I guess.

On average we spend anywhere from $13,000 to $49,000 a year to house a prisoner.

http://www.wiche.edu/Policy/FactBook/tables/tbl_44.pdf

[deputydi]

Well I guess that is one less prisoner we (USA) have to pay for while waiting DP.
Let them house them over there, much cheaper for us. I can't believe them wanting a known murderer, but let them keep him I guess.

On average we spend anywhere from $13,000 to $49,000 a year to house a prisoner.

http://www.wiche.edu/Policy/FactBook/tables/tbl_44.pdf
Problem with that is, in this particular case the individual was not incarcerated anywhere. IIRC, he had a job and I think he had married. I'm going to have to refresh my memory on this case, but it certainly was bizarre. His location was no secret but getting him back here proved to be very difficult.

[frydaddy]

Hey y'all, long time no see! Was this place closed for a spell? Tried to check in and it wouldn't let me in. Thought I was no longer welcome here. Not many days left to post here appearently, so I suppose I will have to wander over to the new digs once they are opened to the public. At any rate...

I am 100% for the death penalty and frankly, I'd like nothing more than to see the process sped up regarding the appeals and the executions or exhonerations. If there's evidence that can acquit or exhonerate, cut those folks loose right now and the jurisdictions who were responsible should support them by whatever means necessary for as long as it takes. If there is none in a fairly short amount of time after a conviction, put them where they belong. For me, it is not the DP issue that should be done away with or revamped, it's the appellate check and balance that should be reformed to ensure that folks who deserve to die do so quickly and those who do not are set free immediately.

As for each person's opinion about the DP and it's implications on our society, I have no problem with opposing views. It's a tricky topic for sure. I've just yet to see a compelling reason to abolish it for those convicted since technology has for the most part eliminated the majority of the false convictions. You get a trial, you get your appeals, and you get how many chances at clemency at the last minute. For someone like Scott, it's a no brainer. Start his appeals tomorrow and let's be done with it one way or the other. After all, there seems to be plenty of evidence out there to cut him loose! :rolleyes:

:seeya:

[TopGunner]

Hey y'all, long time no see! Was this place closed for a spell? Tried to check in and it wouldn't let me in. Thought I was no longer welcome here. Not many days left to post here appearently, so I suppose I will have to wander over to the new digs once they are opened to the public. At any rate...

I am 100% for the death penalty and frankly, I'd like nothing more than to see the process sped up regarding the appeals and the executions or exhonerations. If there's evidence that can acquit or exhonerate, cut those folks loose right now and the jurisdictions who were responsible should support them by whatever means necessary for as long as it takes. If there is none in a fairly short amount of time after a conviction, put them where they belong. For me, it is not the DP issue that should be done away with or revamped, it's the appellate check and balance that should be reformed to ensure that folks who deserve to die do so quickly and those who do not are set free immediately.

As for each person's opinion about the DP and it's implications on our society, I have no problem with opposing views. It's a tricky topic for sure. I've just yet to see a compelling reason to abolish it for those convicted since technology has for the most part eliminated the majority of the false convictions. You get a trial, you get your appeals, and you get how many chances at clemency at the last minute. For someone like Scott, it's a no brainer. Start his appeals tomorrow and let's be done with it one way or the other. After all, there seems to be plenty of evidence out there to cut him loose! :rolleyes:

:seeya:


WOO HOO Frydaddy is in the house!!!!:biggrin: :rose:

As for the death penalty and my opinion, I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision. I can't say I'm for it, but can't say I know what the alternative is either, so I respectfully pass on the whole topic, LOL.

[frydaddy]

WOO HOO Frydaddy is in the house!!!!:biggrin: :rose:

As for the death penalty and my opinion, I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision. I can't say I'm for it, but can't say I know what the alternative is either, so I respectfully pass on the whole topic, LOL.

Hey there TG, good to cross paths with you again! What can I say, I truly have missed the whole gang something fierce! So hugs, high fives, :beer: , and :rose: for everyone who deems it appropriate!!!

As for the DP discussion...much like race, religion, and politics, it is not for the weak of heart! LOL

[Wearing A Halo]

Hey y'all, long time no see! Was this place closed for a spell? Tried to check in and it wouldn't let me in. Thought I was no longer welcome here. Not many days left to post here appearently, so I suppose I will have to wander over to the new digs once they are opened to the public. At any rate...

I am 100% for the death penalty and frankly, I'd like nothing more than to see the process sped up regarding the appeals and the executions or exhonerations. If there's evidence that can acquit or exhonerate, cut those folks loose right now and the jurisdictions who were responsible should support them by whatever means necessary for as long as it takes. If there is none in a fairly short amount of time after a conviction, put them where they belong. For me, it is not the DP issue that should be done away with or revamped, it's the appellate check and balance that should be reformed to ensure that folks who deserve to die do so quickly and those who do not are set free immediately.

As for each person's opinion about the DP and it's implications on our society, I have no problem with opposing views. It's a tricky topic for sure. I've just yet to see a compelling reason to abolish it for those convicted since technology has for the most part eliminated the majority of the false convictions. You get a trial, you get your appeals, and you get how many chances at clemency at the last minute. For someone like Scott, it's a no brainer. Start his appeals tomorrow and let's be done with it one way or the other. After all, there seems to be plenty of evidence out there to cut him loose! :rolleyes:

:seeya:

Hi Frydaddy,

I most totally concur!

:patriot:

[cookiewench]

I sometimes think that putting these people to death lowers us to their level. Most civilized countries won't even extradite criminals if the dp is on the board. That, too, angers me. I can't remember his name or most of the details, but recently there was a prof who murdered his girlfriend and fled first to Canada then to France or Germany (I believe). Neither country would extradite him even though he had been convicted in an American court "in abstentia". As long as the dp is an option in America, these holier than thou countries should recognize it as OUR law. They are not being asked to try, convict or sentence these fugitives so how is it they get to say "sorry, we don't like your law so you can't have him/her back".


Ira Einhorn. He was extradicted from France - and is now in prison in Pa. Don't think he was given the death penalty, though.

[Miss Bootsie]

Hey y'all, long time no see! Was this place closed for a spell? Tried to check in and it wouldn't let me in. Thought I was no longer welcome here. Not many days left to post here appearently, so I suppose I will have to wander over to the new digs once they are opened to the public. At any rate...
Hey There Frydaddy. So good to see you.:seeya:
I don't believe the forum was closed? Maybe it was just a glitch. Since the ng's have all left, I don't post much anymore. I really miss the debates.:tongue:


I am 100% for the death penalty and frankly, I'd like nothing more than to see the process sped up regarding the appeals and the executions or exhonerations. If there's evidence that can acquit or exhonerate, cut those folks loose right now and the jurisdictions who were responsible should support them by whatever means necessary for as long as it takes. If there is none in a fairly short amount of time after a conviction, put them where they belong. For me, it is not the DP issue that should be done away with or revamped, it's the appellate check and balance that should be reformed to ensure that folks who deserve to die do so quickly and those who do not are set free immediately.
I am 100% for the death penalty as well.
I couldn't agree with you more regarding the appellate check and balance issue. Unfortunately, I don't expect to see any changes during my life-time, anyway.

As for each person's opinion about the DP and it's implications on our society, I have no problem with opposing views. It's a tricky topic for sure. I've just yet to see a compelling reason to abolish it for those convicted since technology has for the most part eliminated the majority of the false convictions. You get a trial, you get your appeals, and you get how many chances at clemency at the last minute. For someone like Scott, it's a no brainer. Start his appeals tomorrow and let's be done with it one way or the other. After all, there seems to be plenty of evidence out there to cut him loose! :rolleyes:

:seeya:
We know about that secret evidence that will cut Scott loose, don't we. :rolleyes: :tongue:

Have a Merry Christmas. Look forward to seeing you on the new board.

:seeya: