Nebur's World

As an attorney that has worked on death-penalty cases, I understand your dismay with the Peterson verdict. However, I do also understand the collective outrage a community could have for Scott's acts. For the moment you have to accept the jury's decision from last month -- that Scott Peterson is guilty of killing his pregnant wife.

• I do not have to accept a jury's decision. That's why we have courts of appeal. I have tried over 40 criminal cases, and I can say that yes, the jury usually gets it right. They might have gotten it right this time, at least as far as the act of a homicide is concerned (homicide = unlawful killing.) But, in my experience, juries get it wrong from time to time as well, especially in situations with pretrial publicity. Ask yourself, aside from his admittedly bizarre behavior, what evidence is there that Scott 1) killed his wife, 2) did so with with malice aforethought? It seems to me that he was convicted because of the old if-it quacks-like-a-duck-it-must-be-a-duck theory.

Moreover, he engaged in wholesale deception of an entire community that was searching for Laci, when he knew her whereabouts all along. Assuming the jury was correct -- what is the proper punishment? While life w/o parole may be more palatable; however, the reality is that this would shorten Peterson's life -- since he would be certainly "executed" on the prison yard by another inmate (prisons have their own sensibilities and methods of exacting justice that don't require the niceties of Constitutional protections).

• I disagree completely. Which notorious killer, aside from Dahmer, has been "executed" on a prison yard? Granted, I understand that Richard Allen Davis hasn't taken exercise in the decade that he has been on death row for fear of "prison justice." Besides, just because Peterson may be brutally murdered while on death row or while serving life in prison, does it make it right for society to kill in the name of stopping killings?

There are very serious problems with the death penalty, such as those you cite -- unequal application along racial and enconomic lines. Those arguments, however, do not provide a defense for all crimes. Stated differently, there are some crimes that society can collectively agree that are so beyond the acceptable norms that death is the agreed upon penalty.

• Society has not agreed that death is the agreed-upon penalty for anything. "The October 2003 Gallup Poll found that overall support of the death penalty had dropped to its lowest level in 25 years: 64% supported the death penalty and 32% opposed. Another Gallup Poll (May 2004) revealed that when respondents are given the choice of life without parole as an alternate sentencing option, support for the death penalty is at 50%." (Source: Death Penalty Factsheet) . Furthermore, 25% of U.S. States do not have the death penalty, and 6 of the remaining death penalty states have not applied it since 1976. Why is there such a lack of consensus? Some thoughts:

1. THE DEATH PENALTY IS APPLIED ALONG RACIAL LINES: Since 1991, 11 white defendants have been executed nationwide for killing black victims. In the same time period, 157 black defendants have been executed for killing white victims. (for a searcheable database of execution data, click here.)
2. THE DEATH PENALTY EXECUTES INNOCENT PEOPLE: Since 1973, 117 people have been exonerated after spending an average of 9 years on death row.

Is there NO crime that is worthy of the death penalty?

• No. While perhaps there are crimes that people can commit where they no longer have a moral right to live, the government has no right kill anyone, especially when we are so effective at incarcerating people.

Before you answer -- think about Osama?

• My answer is still no. If you said Hitler, my answer would still be no. If you said Jordan Knight or any other of the New Kids on the Block, my answer, uh, would still be no.

If Peterson wanted to save his life, he had an opportunity to do so. Instead, he engaged in this charade for YEARS. What did the hot-shot legal counsel get Peterson? A "hot-shot" in a California correctional facility. There were lots of opportunities for Scott to avoid this result, but he didn't want to hurt his chances of getting the acquittal. This was an extremely calculated gamble by the defense team -- they put it all on the pass-line and they crapped out. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. As the late great Robin Harris would say, "Some people have just gotta go. Gotta go."

• We live in an adversarial legal system. As a lawyer, my friend , you know that Scott had an absolute right to put the People to their burden. This is not an inquisitorial system, where the burden is on defendants to repent and seek forgiveness. Perhaps Scott should have confessed, in order to get right with God, if he in fact was guilty. That's a separate issue. Also , the immortal Robin Harris also asked "who called my piccolo player a mutherf$%^er," but I doubt that qualifies him as any sage on this issue.

While I would be happy to engage in conversation about the application of the death penalty in this country, I don't think that Scott Peterson is the test case. It has been said that, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." However, you must remember that this term, "an eye for an eye", is from the BIBLE, which is filled with themes of vengeance. Maybe your point is that while we have come so far (to the moon, etc), we still have much progress to make before we evolve beyond vengeance.

• The death penalty is wrong. Every case is a test case. I am no fan of white frat boys who cheat on their pregnant wives, but wrog is wrong is wrong. Also, contrary to popular belief, the bible does not provide blanket support for the death penalty. The scriptures place countless hurdles before a person can be executed, hurdles that could never be surmounted in a modern age. Example: The same two people must 1) pre-warn against the criminal act, 2) witness the criminal act, and 3) be willing to personally carry out the punishment.
• Early Christian scholars, who undoubtedly understood the book better than we do, did not view the bible as a basis for capital punishment. "One example is Lactantius (260 to 330 CE) who is primarily known for his books "Introduction to True Religion" and "The Divine Institutes." He wrote in The Divine Institutes, Book 6, Chapter 20:
• 
  "When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. ... Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature." Source: ReligiousTolerance.org
  

Thanks for listening.

• Thank you, my friend, for sparking this discussion, you always have been, and always will be my brother. The last time I committed a major crime, it was with you. You will always be my Minister of Finance, and I, your Minister of Information. Give my best to missus 333.