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

Originally Posted by 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

[margaritaville]

Originally Posted by 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

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

I wonder how long he would last?

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by margaritaville

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. .

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

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?

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

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]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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?

There is no protective housing unit at San Quentin.

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

There is no protective housing unit at San Quentin.

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

[I'mSun]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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?

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]

Originally Posted by I'mSun

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.

[Buckethead]

Originally Posted by margaritaville

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]

Originally Posted by 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. .

Great post! ITA.....except for the part about CA abolishing the ds...

[sunbeam]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Great post! ITA.....except for the part about CA abolishing the ds...

I'm hoping California does abolish the death penalty.

[TopGunner]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

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.......

[Wearing A Halo]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

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).

[Sturgeon_Moon]

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

imo

[margaritaville]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

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]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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.

May I second that?

JMO

[Lavindar]

Originally Posted by Sturgeon_Moon

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]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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? Not nearly enough though, IMO.

JMO

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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]

Originally Posted by Lili007

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? 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]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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]

Originally Posted by Lili007

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]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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]

Originally Posted by Lili007

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]

Originally Posted by Lili007

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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]

Originally Posted by Luke Davis

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]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

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.

Lili

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Invrdv8

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!

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Luke Davis

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]

Originally Posted by Lavindar

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]

Originally Posted by Tangerine

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]

Originally Posted by deputydi

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.