Comments on: The Murdering Idiot Is Guilty!!!

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:22:01 +0000

William,
I submit to you that your problem, is, well, your problem.
Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Most cases are built on, and many convictions based on, circumstantial evidence. The jury found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now Peterson will go to appeals etc. The odds are in his favor, in the CA has only executed 1 man in a decade, and 500 are sitting on death row.
While our legal system derives much from the Bible, it is NOT solely so.

By: William Meisheid

William Meisheid — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:22:28 +0000

SCIWzzy – ah, but even trying someone on a count that could produce the death penalty is a problem for me biblically, because, as has happened, the death penalty can be imposed.

By: adrian

adrian — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:01:29 +0000

Thanks, La Shawn, for reminding us that cap. punishment isn’t unchristian.

Adrian

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:36:33 +0000

William,
Sentencing and conviction are two different things. Murder 1 doesn’t not carry an automatic death penalty in California.
And then there are the appeals….

By: firebird

firebird — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:20:59 +0000

WE FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY HE,S GUILTY HE,S GUILTY G.U.I.L.T.Y. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY HOORAAYY and you must wonder that if given the deathy scentence how long will it be before he is exicuted? i mean look how long it took them to fanaly exicute ROBERT ALTON HARRIS for the murder of those two teenage boys and all the bleeding heart jerks protesting against his exicution

By: William Meisheid

William Meisheid — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:18:42 +0000

Look at Numbers 35:29-30. On that basis, could you try Scott Peterson for a count that included the death penalty? Who are the witnesses? Even in our forensic environment there was no direct forensic evidence to be a witness. There were no witnesses at all.

Scripture cuts both ways and tries our heart as well (two edged sword). We cannot listen to it only when it says what we want to hear.

Being a member of the jury is irrelevant to this situation since everyone agrees the case was completely circumstantial.

By: William Meisheid

William Meisheid — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:09:38 +0000

>Well, since I’m not a member of the jury and wasn’t in the courtroom, I don’t know what to tell you, William

Not being a member of the jury is irrelevant. What I would hope you would tell me is that you could not support it based on being a bible-believing Christian. The biblical standard is from Numbers 35:29-30. “These are to be legal requirements for you throughout the generations to come, wherever you live. Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.”

This case had no witnesses at all, including direct evidence, if in our modern forensic environment you want to consider that sort of thing a witness. So they were wrong to even try him on a death penalty count without any witnesses.

Scripture cuts both ways. If we claim we adhere to it in all things we must adhere to it now, even when it stops us from doing what we may feel is the “right” thing to do.

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:06:13 +0000

Well, since I’m not a member of the jury and wasn’t in the courtroom, I don’t know what to tell you, William.

By: William Meisheid

William Meisheid — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:01:12 +0000

La Shawn, whether or not Scott Peterson is guilty (despite the jury verdict), as a Christian I find it appalling that anyone can be convicted of first degree murder, soley on circumstantial evidence, without a solid motive, on a case built on conjecture alone. Get him on a lesser charge possibly but no one should be up for the death penalty on this kind of case with this kind of evidence.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:24:07 +0000

I served on a jury once for a criminal trial. The judge’s instructions to us regarding ‘circumstancial evidence’ and
‘reasonable doubt were as follows:

If you see snowmobile tracks in the snow(this trial was in NH) it is valid to believe a snowmobile was there even though no one was there to witness it.

Reasonable doubt is doubt based on reason(s) you can articulate to other jurors that makes sense using evidence presented in the trial. There will always be some doubt because you could not be an eye witness to the crime yourself.

By: LilacRose

LilacRose — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:42:09 +0000

Since I’ve been out…
I didn’t intend to go on hiatus for almost a week…it kind of just happened. So here are a few…

By: BobG

BobG — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:20:47 +0000

That verse in Romans is a little more specific. Speaking about the authority appointed by God, Romans 13:4 “For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”

By: BobG

BobG — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:14:02 +0000

He left her on Christmas eve near the end of the pregnancy. No one can convince me that there isn’t something wrong with that picture.

By: tom f

tom f — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:30:57 +0000

Did anyone notice that peterson got 1st degree for his wife and 2nd degree for his unborn child? i was saddened to see there was no reaction to this horrible lapse of justice. in GODs’ eyes the child was more precious – without guile or sin – yet our justice system has once again implied that a child is not really worth as much as its’ mother.

By: WayneB

WayneB — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:00:46 +0000

Disclaimer – I am NOT trying to say Scott Peterson is innocent. There was too much evidence that made it very likely he was guilty. I just don’t agree with one thing that I’ve heard more than once, about Peterson going fishing.

Sorry, BobG, but there are men out there who are pretty good husbands and fathers who would take a temporary sabbatical from their pregnant wife. In some cases, the wife would even be the one telling them to go. It has a lot to do with the personalities involved. Like I said in the disclaimer above, I believe he was guilty, I just don’t think that particular point is relevant.