Scott Peterson gets death penalty recommendation — Page 4

I think he gets off easy....

I'd much rather see him spend life in prison without the possibility of parole and be bubba's b*tch for the rest of his days.

---

Silly girl!

The media doesn't care about brown people unless they've played a major league sport!

I, too, am opposed to the death penalty and see no reason in rejoicing this decision.

---

you are SO 'Deadwood'!

---

For the Bible thumpers, "An eye for an eye" is Old Testament thinking. Jesus teaches to "Turn the other cheek." That is what the New Testament is all about. That is if you believe in all that mumbo-jumbo. I am against the death penalty also but I also believe that Corine DOES look like Lacy, so what do I know.

---

i don't know what the f*** that's supposd to mean, you rat b*st*rd c***s***er. jesus f***ing christ, can we try to find a f***ing frame of reference for the god-d***ed comments so that we're all on the same f***ing page here no matter what side of the god-d***ed argument we f***ing choose? or is that too f***ing much to ask?

---

and neither will scott.

---

see the chickenhawk's second comment.

---

Who cares, one two bzzzt. It's over.

It's the public de-wigging and forced face-scubbing of Michael Jackson that people should be looking forward to.

---

Sueleen. FYI, Corine's doesn't want you using her photo...

---

See, El, that's what I don't understand. You say that you are not for the death penalty. But in *this* case you are... What makes this particular crime more heinous than a hundred others? The media made people care about this story because it sold papers and raised TV ratings.

---

CostumeMistress is right, by the way.

Anyone seen "The Thin Blue Line?"

Secondly, I believe SueElleen said it, but again, for Christians, eye for an eye is generally "overruled" by "turn the other cheek," and "an eye for an eye" properly understood is a limit on punishment, not a recommendation.

I am opposed to the death penalty on religious, philosophical, and realistic/practical grounds. (I just spent three weeks discussing this wrote a 10-page paper on this for my philosophy class, so bear with me while I try to make my argument in a shorter amount of time....)

Practically, the death penalty has never been established as a better deterrent than life in prison w/out parole. It has been proven that the best deterrents are swift punishments, which the death penalty is anything but. Also, though in this case, I'm fairly certain Peterson is guilty, the chance of innocent people being executed for me means that I don't want the justice system to have that power--ever. Also, the discrimination factor makes me want the death penalty abolished.

Philosophically, I feel it is wrong that any person or group of persons have dominion over another in such a way as to violate the basic right to life. Okay, so we say that Scott took away Lacy and her child's life and for that he deserves to die. I don't argue that he shouldn't be punished. Hell, I think the only correct way to respond is to punish. Just by virtue of his actions, it is only right to punish. If we don't set limits to our actions as a society, then there what kind of moral society do we live in. But who are we to say that some killing is okay and some isn't? Human beings have intrinsic value. No matter where you argue that from (socially, religiously, philosophically, whatever) most people agree that humans have intrinsic value just because they're human. I find it completely unjustified that a human institution (and a very fallible one at that) have the right to violate the fundamental right to life.

I don't really feel it appropriate at this time to argue from a religious perspective (plus I'm trying to write a religion paper at the moment and I really need to get back to it) but I may choose to later.

---

You make a strong case without the religious argument. And I am in agreement.

---