Scott Peterson Sentenced to Death

[Chernabog]

Peterson Judge Sentences Him to Death

7 minutes ago Top Stories - AP

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - A judge formally sentenced Scott Peterson (news - web sites) to death Wednesday after family members got into a shouting match and Laci Peterson (news - web sites)'s mother sobbed as she called her son-in-law "an evil murderer."

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi allowed only Laci's family members to speak at the hearing after indicating he believed the death penalty was warranted.


Peterson's father yelled from the audience as Laci's brother, Brent Rocha, spoke to the court, saying "Laci and Conner are the true victims here."


"What a liar!" Lee Peterson said before the judge admonished him and he stormed out of the courtroom. Jackie Peterson, Scott Peterson's mother, also interrupted Rocha but her voice was inaudible.


Scott Peterson, 32, was invited to make a statement. After several minutes of discussion with his attorneys, he declined.


Delucchi denied a defense request for a new trial before upholding the jury's recommendation that Peterson be sentenced to death.


"The court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, is guilty of first-degree murder" and second degree, Delucchi said, adding that he found the killings "were cruel, uncaring, heartless and callous."


Peterson, shackled at the waist and wearing a dark suit, showed no emotion throughout the hearing.


Peterson will be sent to death row at San Quentin State Prison within 48 hours, said San Mateo County Sheriff's Lt. Lisa Williams. The infamous lockup overlooks the same bay where Laci Peterson's body was discarded.


Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, sobbed and trembled from a podium as she lashed out at her former son-in-law. Scott Peterson stared back at her without emotion.


"You decided to throw Laci and Conner away, dispose of them like they were just a piece of garbage," she said. "You were wrong; dead wrong."


Dabbing at her eyes with tissues, she called him "an evil murderer."


"The fact that you no longer wanted Laci did not give you the right to murder her," Sharon Rocha said. "She was my daughter ... I trusted you, and you betrayed me ... You betrayed everybody."


Peterson was convicted in November of first-degree murder in the killing of Laci and second-degree murder for the slaying of her fetus. A jury recommended the death penalty a month later.


Rocha spoke to Scott Peterson directly.


"I would hope that you regret the choices that you made. Maybe you don't," Rocha said. "Did you really hate Laci and Conner that much or did you just dislike yourself?"


Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, tried to get the judge to allow Peterson's parents, Jackie and Lee Peterson, to speak, on the basis that they were related to Conner.



But the judge said the hearing was an opportunity for Laci's relatives to speak only. He ordered Scott Peterson to pay $10,000 restitution for funeral expenses and an additional $5,000, though the reason for that amount was unexplained.


Very poetic about the prison overlooking the bay... what a bastard.

[Scrooge McSam]

This post is in no way meant to defend Scott Peterson, because I don't...

but (there's always a "but", isn't there?)

This is very curious to me.

Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, tried to get the judge to allow Peterson's parents, Jackie and Lee Peterson, to speak, on the basis that they were related to Conner.

But the judge said the hearing was an opportunity for Laci's relatives to speak only.

Is that so? Hmmm Peterson was tried for the murder of his wife AND his unborn son. It makes no sense to me for the judge to say comments will only be allowed if they're from the Rochas, as if Lacy was the only victim.

The state decided earlier that there were in fact 2 victims. And one of those victims was related to the Petersons.

[scaeagles]

Speculation only, of course.....

I wonder if the judge is an abortion advocate. I do not know what was within his purview regarding the charges, but it could be that he is unwilling personally to recognize the unborn child as a victim, and therefore would not allow Scott's parents to testify.

I wonder if this ruling will result in charges brought up by a prospective father against a woman who aborts his child. While a different issue completely, either an unborn child can be murdered or an unborn child cannot. A conviction for murdering an unborn child would certainly lay ground for such a case. Food for thought.

Certainly cause for appeal, as if they weren't automatic anyway.

[Gn2Dlnd]

The judge probably correctly assumed that, since the grandparents had never met their grandchild, they probably had no intention of speaking about him, but, instead, would use that time to defend their son.

[SacTown Chronic]

Speculation only, of course.....

I wonder if the judge is an abortion advocate. I do not know what was within his purview regarding the charges, but it could be that he is unwilling personally to recognize the unborn child as a victim, and therefore would not allow Scott's parents to testify.
If that were the issue, I'm sure the judge would have found a way to overthrow the death penalty sentence. The death penalty in California requires murder with special circumstances. In this case the special circumstance was the planning and murder of two people. The murder of Laci alone would not have been enough cause for sentencing Scott to death.

[Ghoulish Delight]

While a different issue completely, either an unborn child can be murdered or an unborn child cannot. Funny, would you use the same argument against the death penalty (i.e., either a person can be murdered or not). At which, point, of course, you start to think, "But the death penalty isn't murder, blah blah blah". But, of course, that's my point. EVEN if there's agreement that an unborn child is a life, the termination of a life does not equal murder every time. You can't make a sweeping generalization like that. Context matters. State executioners aren't arrested for murder, soldeirs in battle aren't arrested for murder, doctors pulling the plug on brain-dead patients aren't arrested for murder. It just ain't that simple.

I DON'T want to get into an abortion discussion. That's kinda my point. While tangentially related, it's not a simple conclusion of, "he was convicted of murdering the unborn child, therefor abortion is murder." Totally different context.

[Ponine]

The judge probably correctly assumed that, since the grandparents had never met their grandchild, they probably had no intention of speaking about him, but, instead, would use that time to defend their son.
Now see, thats exactly what I was thinking..

[mhrc4]

ill make a nice and easy post, not all philisophical....

im glad hes getting what he deserved.

[CoasterMatt]

Maybe they should put the execution on pay per view, help pay off the state's deficit...

Too bad it won't happen for another 10-20 years...

[mousepod]

Maybe they should put the execution on pay per view, help pay off the state's deficit...

Too bad it won't happen for another 10-20 years...

http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/65/105565.jpg

[Tref]

Well, I am not a big proponent of the death penalty, but Scott's death does mean thing to me:

...More food for us!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Perhaps he can go out in style as a human piñata. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7209473/)

[MickeyLumbo]

a pinata from the front yard of NA and seamonkey would be a hit!


seriously, i think the reason the judge denied the Petterson's time to speak is becasue of their emotional outburst during Brent's time and that their display of a lack of respect for the Court. if they hadn't stormed out, they likely would have been removed.

irony, isn't it, that his cell view will be of the bay?

[jdramj]

Speculation only, of course.....

I wonder if the judge is an abortion advocate. I do not know what was within his purview regarding the charges, but it could be that he is unwilling personally to recognize the unborn child as a victim, and therefore would not allow Scott's parents to testify.

I wonder if this ruling will result in charges brought up by a prospective father against a woman who aborts his child. While a different issue completely, either an unborn child can be murdered or an unborn child cannot. A conviction for murdering an unborn child would certainly lay ground for such a case. Food for thought.

Certainly cause for appeal, as if they weren't automatic anyway.

Not that I disagree with you and I'm sure this is just a typo...."allowing Scott's parents to "testify"."?

I'm sure there is no malice on the Judge's part in only letting one side speak, especially since it was allowed only after the sentencing was done, if I read it right. Besides, Scott was only charged with 2nd degree murder of the unborn child, as it was different for Laci.

[Not Afraid]

a pinata from the front yard of NA and seamonkey would be a hit!





I can think of nothing so wrong and so funny. I'm bad that way.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, as one of the few who still believes Peterson to be not guilty, I take some consolation in the fact that his death penalty is, in this state, tantamount to a life sentence.

He will join 680 other inmates on California's death row. 11 people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1971. Um, chances are that Peterson will die in prison of natural causes (the death sentence provides him with facilities safer than he would find in general population).

[Jazzman]

I also lean toward believing that the judge’s decision was based on keeping a sense of decorum in the courtroom. Petersen's family was obviously not concerned with anything other than screaming and yelling, so it's probably better that they were kept quiet.



As far as Petersen is concerned, I don't think the chair is good enough for him. I think he ought to be stripped, rolled in bacon grease and jerky, and thrown into a pit full of starving, rabid Chihuahuas. That would fulfill his karma....

[scaeagles]

Well, as one of the few who still believes Peterson to be not guilty

Interesting.

I am not one to follow the court case du jour, whether it be Michael Jackson or Robert Blake or Scott Peterson. However, all I've really heard is an overwhelming sentiment that he is guilty (based on tidbits here and there - I have no idea what any of the evidence in the case is).

I note you say he is "not guilty" rather than innocent. Do you believe he committed the crime but that there was not enough evidence to convict,, or that he did not commit the crime?

[mousepod]

I also lean toward believing that the judge’s decision was based on keeping a sense of decorum in the courtroom. Petersen's family was obviously not concerned with anything other than screaming and yelling, so it's probably better that they were kept quiet.



As far as Petersen is concerned, I don't think the chair is good enough for him. I think he ought to be stripped, rolled in bacon grease and jerky, and thrown into a pit full of starving, rabid Chihuahuas. That would fulfill his karma....

Jazzman,

That's cruel.

Why would anyone starve a chihuahua? :p

http://www.ped-xing.com/dogfight.JPG

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, as one of the few who still believes Peterson to be not guilty, I take some consolation in the fact that his death penalty is, in this state, tantamount to a life sentence.
I know this wasn't in CA, but didn't Timothy McVeigh get offed pretty quickly? Or was this because it was a federal crime?

[innerSpaceman]

I note you say he is "not guilty" rather than innocent. Do you believe he committed the crime but that there was not enough evidence to convict,, or that he did not commit the crime?
Both. I don't believe the case against him was proven at all - with the priviso that I was certainly not in the court room every day. It was all circumstantial evidence - - which is fine, but I found it rather flimsy and prejudicial. The only physical evidence was a hair of his wife found on his boat. Um, yeah, they were married. Her hair should be everywhere he went. I think the jury succumbed to the same sentiment that struck most of America, namely, that he must be guilty because he's a lying, cheating scumbag.

But I also believe that he's innocent - because he did not any any time evince nearly the smarts necessary to pull off this particular crime with zero physical evidence. The crime was done by a genius, and Peterson is an imbecile.


In any event, his place on death row means he's protected from the inmate population, and chances of being executed in this state are slim ... though his notoriety may make him one of the prime candidates.


By the way, I think he has a good case on appeal: The judge made a huge and prejudicial blunder in allowing the jury to go unsupervised to examine the boat. Big mistake, huge. Reversable.

[Chernabog]

I know this wasn't in CA, but didn't Timothy McVeigh get offed pretty quickly? Or was this because it was a federal crime?

Timothy McVeigh was convicted of various federal crimes. He was charged on April 21, 1995 and was executed on June 11, 2001.

I was reading this morning that at the current rate California executes its inmates on death row, Scott Peterson has approximately 1,000 years before his sentence is carried out.

[Gemini Cricket]

Timothy McVeigh was convicted of various federal crimes. He was charged on April 21, 1995 and was executed on June 11, 2001.

I was reading this morning that at the current rate California executes its inmates on death row, Scott Peterson has approximately 1,000 years before his sentence is carried out.
Interesting. Well, I'm glad he'll be rotting in jail for 1,000 years...

[Chernabog]

Both. I don't believe the case against him was proven at all - with the priviso that I was certainly not in the court room every day. It was all circumstantial evidence - - which is fine, but I found it rather flimsy and prejudicial. The only physical evidence was a hair of his wife found on his boat. Um, yeah, they were married. Her hair should be everywhere he went. I think the jury succumbed to the same sentiment that struck most of America, namely, that he must be guilty because he's a lying, cheating scumbag.

I do think that he killed Laci. However, I do NOT think that the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstancial evidence, the coincidences have to add up a little better than what I read about the case. Here, I think the prosecution got lucky for two reasons:

1) He was a lying, cheating scumbag. Yeah, you arent supposed to convict someone based on this but juries are made of human beings.

2) Mark Geragos had no evidence showing an alternate theory -- that Peterson was "stone cold innocent". His defense was based entirely on coincidence as well. I was reading an article about that issue this morning. Usually, the defense has to prove that the prosection has not made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to try and show anything beyond that. However, Geragos made it a point that he was going to "prove" an alternate theory or Laci's death... which was never really "proven". That may have been in the jury's mind as well.

[Nephythys]

I don't give a damn- given that I believe in divine justice, no matter what happens to him in this life- hell has a special room for a man who kills a pregnant woman.

If he's "innocent" let God work it out.

[mhrc4]

I don't give a damn- given that I believe in divine justice, no matter what happens to him in this life- hell has a special room for a man who kills a pregnant woman.

If he's "innocent" let God work it out.

very nice POV - i, to an extent, agree with you on this one....

[Nephythys]

very nice POV - i, to an extent, agree with you on this one....


always nice to have someone agree- to any extent LOL

[€uroMeinke]

If he's "innocent" let God work it out.

An interesting proposition, but if he were an athiest like me no believing in a God or afterlife, I would think you'd have to commute his sentance to Life. Anything else would be state sponsored religion ;)

[Nephythys]

An interesting proposition, but if he were an athiest like me no believing in a God or afterlife, I would think you'd have to commute his sentance to Life. Anything else would be state sponsored religion ;)

funny boy- :p

[CoasterMatt]

Well, regardless, Scott has some new friends to look forward to on Death Row...

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/41386.htm