Scott Peterson's death sentence in murder of pregnant wife overturned by California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court on Monday overturned the death penalty sentence for Scott Peterson, convicted in the Christmas Eve murder of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.

The court's decision came over 15 years after Laci, a Modesto, Calif., school teacher, was killed. Investigators said Peterson dumped his wife's body from his fishing boat into the San Francisco Bay in 2002. The bodies surfaced months later.

While the murder conviction against Peterson stayed in place, the court ordered a new penalty phase trial.

Sorry for the misuse of the word. Just wasn’t paying attention.

I never said that its either the DP or release. That you may have taken that as my point is regrettable. We can adequately keep those individuals “from murdering again” and make our communities safer by utilizing life without parole. Lock them up for ever. Then...no parole boards. Victims and their families can move on without worrying about it coming back up again and again. In my career...I have handled numerous retrials just like this one in the Peterson case. How traumatic is it for the family to have to go through a trial over and over and over again. I handled one that I was conducting the 3rd trial. When I tried the 3rd trial, it had been 24 years since the crime. The family of the victim, a 7 year old girl, had to relive it over again after 24 years. That was in 2009. Now, 11 more years have passed. 35 years since the murder. The defendant is still on death row. Still going through appeals. 35 years. Really? All this crap to maybe just maybe execute him. The victim’s grandparents have now died. Her mother is an old woman. She may not live to see that day. And...as Long as appeals are ongoing...it may come back again. You see...if you get death...you are entitled to free appellate counsel for every appeal. You get a state appeal. A state post conviction application. That actually can be raised over and over again. You get a direct appeal to the US Supreme Court. Then you get Federal Habeas appeal to the Federal district court where you were convicted. Then you get to appeal to the circuit court of appeals. Then the Supreme Court. Then you get a clemency hearing. And a Commutation hearing. All on the taxpayer’s dime. If you get life without parole. You get one appeal to your state appeals court for free. And one direct appeal to the SCOTUS. You do not get free Federal Habeas. You get no free Post Conviction. You get one real bite at the apple. Then it’s done. The rest is on your dime. So...it’s over. The victim and the victim’s families can go on with life. it’s over. That was my point. With the DP...it’s never over. Until they maybe, just maybe get executed.

I went back and reread your post, and now do take your point about the distortions to our system caused by the nearly inexhaustible opportunities for appeals. I see that I was “triggered” by your description of the man who told a reporter he didn’t feel closure (within moments of the execution) and based on that example, you called the death penalty a waste.

Ever since reporters started asking about feeeeelings in the 70s, not just journalism but also jurisprudence has gone downhill, with its emphasis on case law, the radical extreme application of individual rights, and the feeelings of the rape/torture/murderer’s family being set on the same level as those of the family of the victim—provided that if any favoritism is shown, it must be shown to the Antichrist side.

When our system was developed, based on English common law, the majority ethos of the culture was that when you die, you go either to heaven or to hell based on your state of repentance. That’s why the long-term prisons were called penitentiaries. Rehabilitation was supposed to be moral, and the culture generally agreed on the source of morality, i.e. Mosaic law and Christian interpretation of that law.

That way, and granted this is a broad brush overview, if someone was wrongly executed, at least the family had the comfort of believing he or she would live eternally in a better place, and they would be reunited after death. Now, you have feral animals or atheist materialist convicts fighting the endless appeals to which you refer—desperately clinging to the only life they beliieve in, that of the material world. Or is it instead that Christian teaching is actually true—that every human has an inborn conscience and they are striving to avoid the flames of a hell they don’t consciously believe exists?

At any rate, when communities were smaller, travel more difficult, people didn’t live as long and the law eventually caught up even with fugitive re-offenders, our society was better able to deliver on its promise of swift justice, including executions.

Now that we have DNA and other forensic advances, you would hope that endless appeals would diminish in egregious cases. But with no codified bedrock source of morality, what we have instead is a growth industry for creative defenses and malleable interpretations, even of the very definition of words, with the Left determined to spread the protections of our hard-fought Founding principles over every wrongdoer, including any illegal alien or terrorist who can get a social justice crusader to argue for his or her fundamentally dishonest, spiritually worthless life.

I am sorry for any misunderstanding. I sometimes write responses that seem clear in my head but aren’t clear when read by others later. I did not mean to say based on that one example of the husband not getting closure, that the DP is a waste. I should have said that of the 4 or so justifications that most give for the death penalty (and it really is different for each person) that the “it gives victim’s families closure” is not valid to me. There is never “closure.” In fact,,,I believe that the “closure” argument is a psychological construct that really has no meaning. The gentleman I referenced never got “closure.” He wife was still dead. He was still alone. The death of the murderer did not improve his life. I believe that society and pseudo mental health folks have convinced people that the execution of the murderer will cause the clouds to part, the sun to shine and life will be all good and well again. And I believe that is what the gentleman thought would happen. Then...once the killer was dead, he realized it changed nothing as far as his every day life goes. His wife was still dead. For that reason, I believe that justifying the DP because of the “closure” argument is flawed. Then...the cost argument is flawed because our system is so out of wack that it costs 3-4 times as much to pursue the DP than it would cost to just house them in prison for the rest of their lives. That fact is undeniable. Now...if we can fix the system...then great. That may become a justification. But as of now it isn’t. And sadly I do not see the system getting fixed at this point. That leaves deterrence. And as I said before, out of over 50 murder cases I have handled in my career...I can count on one had the number that were planned, staged and carried out. The rest were murders in the moment. And those folks do not think down the road years, months, weeks or even hours. They think of that very moment. And they kill. So having the DP doesn’t deter them at all. That leaves the “pound of flesh” justification. Which may not be bad in and of itself. But I do not think that is a way to justify it. It makes some in society feel good. Retribution is pleasing to some. I can think of times I wanted retribution. But is it reason enough? That was my whole point in response to a question from someone else.

And I agree with you on you analysis of the system. It has a lot of problems. As to advances of science...we would have thought it would reduce appeals and questions, but to me it seems to have increased them. There seem to be more and more questions now. Everyone has their scientist. There is now a whole cottage industry of criminal forensics and everyone has their hired guns. That has created even more questions. Which science is right? Which isn’t? The system is a mess. And I do not see the process becoming shorter and quicker. And for that reason I say just shelve the DP. Go to life without parole. Lock them up...let them be forgotten about. Yeah, the get to live. But I can tell you...having spent time in prisons meeting with clients/criminals, it isn’t really a life. I wouldn’t want it. But at least then the victims and their families can go on with life and not worry about appeal after appeal, and worry about having to go through a second or third re-trial.

In this Peterson case...even though the Cali Supreme Court was legally correct in their reversal...the family will now have to live through another full trial of the case. Yes...the conviction was upheld. But to get the DP back...the state will have to essentially retry the case from start to finish. The only issue will be the sentence...but they have to prove that the case deserves the DP and it will take a full trial. I handled 2 or 3 of these types when I was a DP defense attorney. In fact, those cases were some of the longest trials I have ever conducted. And they were both just resentencing trials. But they required the full representation of the evidence. And that just messes with families so much. Anyway...that is my two cents.

As far as deterrence goes, our present style of execution looks like a trip to the dentist; and only a few people witness it, which in itself is shame- inducing—for the witnesses.

Executions should be only for the worst of crimes, and among them, I count any penetrative rape of a prepubescent child and violent rape with severe injury of a female or a male of any age; and the executions should be swift and public: hanging or firing squad. Let’s try that for seven years and then see if it is a deterrent.

Failing that, and given our ultra-litigious society as regards the constant ACLU suits to split every possible hair on behalf of the accused, the convicted and the manifestly evil among us, life without parole does seem the only option for closure, assuming that life means life. In UK, the most heinous criminals are out in ten after serving their “life” sentence.

Your remarks about closure continue to talk about feelings of psychological relief. That can never even happen—the horror must simply be lived with. But surely there is closure in not having to deal with this criminal’s future legal appeals, possible release, update interviews by People magazine, and so forth. That’s why the reporter’s question minutes aftef the sanitary death spectacle is so stupidly repugnant.

We haven’t solved it, but we’ve had a spirited discussion—thanks. If an opportunity arises for you to press for limited appeals and greater protections for victims from legal/industrial abuse, I hope you will step up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.