• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Peterson sentenced...to death.

robtex

robtex

Veteran Member
I want to state that in the little that I read about the case he seems likely to have done it though I am not going to make the very important point that as a non juror I am in a poor position to determine his guilt.

What I do know as a fact and what is disturbing to me is that he was sentenced to death on circumstancial evidence. There was no dna at the crime scene (bay), there was no witness and no confession. There is strong circumstanical evidence that was made public from his weak alaibai, his change of appearance his attempted flight from the USA and it paints a picture of varying probalities but with only a circumstancial.

I have difficulty with a system that puts people to death based entirely on circumstanical evidence like the Peterson case.
 
S

Saw11_2000

Well-Known Member
There was just sooo much stuff stacked against him, I think. Too many things seemed odd to consider it a coincidence.
 
BUDDY

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
Circumstancial evidence is still evidence. His girlfriend thinks he did it, his sister thinks he did it and the twelve jurors thought he did it and that he should get the death penalty. I trust their judgement.
 
linwood

linwood

Well-Known Member
Mister Emu said:
Whether or not he is truly guilty I don't believe they should have convicted him.
Click to expand...
I`m inclined to agree.

Personally I believe he did it merely by judging his actions but he was convicted on circumstantial evidence that really didn`t "prove" a damn thing.

His death sentence is just further insult to injury.
 
Druidus

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
If it had been you up there, and you knew you didn't do it, but "circumstantial evidence" lead everyone else to believe you did, would you trust them? He may not have done it, or he might have, either way, you do not base a case off of circumstial evidence.
 
Druidus

Druidus

Keeper of the Grove
I, too, agree with Linwood and Mr. Emu. As I said in another thread, he might have done it, or he might have not, but either way, you don't base a case off of circumstantial evidence.
 
linwood

linwood

Well-Known Member
Over 100 released death row inmates in the past 10 years are proof of that.

DNA evidence freed them.
 
linwood

linwood

Well-Known Member
Druidus said:
I, too, agree with Linwood and Mr. Emu. As I said in another thread, he might have done it, or he might have not, but either way, you don't base a case off of circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
heheh..I think the two threads were merged druidus.
It threw me off as well.
 
Quoth The Raven

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
Unless there is proof positive that the person committed the crime the death penalty shouldn't even be a consideration. From what I've read it really didn't look good for him, but in no way should he have been able to be sentenced to death.
EEWRED said:
Circumstancial evidence is still evidence. His girlfriend thinks he did it, his sister thinks he did it and the twelve jurors thought he did it and that he should get the death penalty. I trust their judgement.
Click to expand...
I was absolutely convinced my son ate the last donut once. Turns out he didn't. Lucky for him you can't put your kids to death based on the fact the donut is gone and you're certain they ate it.
 
michel

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
robtex said:
I want to state that in the little that I read about the case he seems likely to have done it though I am not going to make the very important point that as a non juror I am in a poor position to determine his guilt.

What I do know as a fact and what is disturbing to me is that he was sentenced to death on circumstancial evidence. There was no dna at the crime scene (bay), there was no witness and no confession. There is strong circumstanical evidence that was made public from his weak alaibai, his change of appearance his attempted flight from the USA and it paints a picture of varying probalities but with only a circumstancial.

I have difficulty with a system that puts people to death based entirely on circumstanical evidence like the Peterson case.
Click to expand...
That is one of the reasons the death penalty was abolished here; there have even been cases of someone executed, and the real criminal was later found to have comitted the crime!:eek:
 
Jaymes

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Glad to see we're taking another step to make the whole world blind. Gotta love the eye for an eye punishments. :banghead3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top