12/13   REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- A jury today recommended that 32-year-old
        Scott Peterson should be executed for the murder of his wife when she
        was eight months pregnant with their first child.
        \_ obTurnOffFoxNews
        \_ So does anyone thing he actually didn't do it?  I don't care if you
           think he should have been acquited.
           \_ He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  He didn't testify, with
              everything that happened.
              \_ I think it would be a bad idea to testify.  Having had the
                 affair and all the stupid shit he did after Laci disappeared,
                 the prosecution could have made him look very bad on the stand
                 \_ Not to disagree with you, but do you remember him ever
                    having stood up and said, "I had an affair but I didn't,
                    honest to God, kill Laci".
                    \_ No, but he wouldn't have to testify in court to say that
              \_ Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?  Based on circumstantial
                 evidence?  Look, I think he did it, too, but the trial's
                 been a horrible miscarriage of proper judicial procedure.
                 The lesson for you would-be murderers out there: don't be so
                 damn public about it all.
                 \_ A lot of murder cases are circumstantial.  It's actually
                    rare thet you have an eyewitness or incontravertable
                    physical evidence.  'Beyond a reasonable doubt' means just
                    that:  That any doubts in the case are unreasonable.  The
                    defence theory was that some strangers would kidnap a woman
                    walking a golden retriever in broad daylight, and then go
                    to the trouble of driving her body 100 miles away to frame
                    the husband, yet also attempt to keep the body sunken.
                    That strikes me as not very reasonable.
                    \_ The burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the
                       defense.  Given that the prosecution's case seemed to
                       be, well, he could have done it, there seem to be plenty
                       of reasonable doubts.
                       \_ Certainly the defense does not have to prove their
                          case, but they must offer an alternative explanation
                          for the evidence that is at least plausible.  I saw
                          no plausible explanation for the evidence other than
                          the one the jury believed.
                    \_ Ah, I've been thinking that it might be framining, until
                       you mentioned the "yet also attempt to keep the body
                       sunken" part.
                       \_ Kidnappings of strangers are rare.
                          Kidnappings in broad daylight are rare.
                          Kidnappings of someone with a large dog are rare.
                          Framings are rare.
                          \_ Married men killing their expectant wives are
                             rare. What's your point here?
        \_ Even if he didn't do it, his actions after his wife's death
           were so stupid that he probably deserves to die.
        \_ Scott should have tried to relocate to Los Angeles with the
           mostly sympathetic and uneducated jury. "Dear homies, senors, y
           senoras, que fish baits don't hook, you must acquit!!!"
          \_ help also if Peterson were a famous/heroic football
             legend who won the Heisenfuck award.
             \_ Or if he's African American.
                \_ racist!!!
                   \_ I'm still looking for the Real Killer with every round
                      of golf I play!
                \_ Yeah, clearly the problem with the criminal justice system
                   in this country is that blacks have it too easy.
                   \_ For cases under the media spotlight, it seems so.
          \_ That's why I don't agree with the Jury system. In this country
             we leave the jobs to the professionals. But like everything that's
             set in stone, it's hard to change.
                \_ the problem is not the Jury system, but the African
                   Americans in the Jury system.
                   \_ If you're going to say something blatantly racist, why
                      use politically correct language to do it?
             \_ Most Napoleonic/continental European justice systems rely
                on cases handled exclusively by professionals (i.e. judicial
                panels--the more serious the case, the more judges.)  It works
                more often than not, leading to fairly common-sense verdicts,
                but has resulted in some pretty horrendous travesties.  Does
                this sound familiar at all?  -John
                \_ Has anyone done a comparison between these systems?
                   I am sure you can find bad examples in each, but I would
                   trust professionals more than a bunch of idiots. Yeah,
                   sure, a stupid guy smoking with cancer deserves some
                   billions of dollars, give me a break.
                   \_ These are the idiot examples of US justice.  Someone did
                      a study a while ago comparing US handling of, say,
                      corporate responsibility vs. European--their findings
                      were that the Euros do a nanny act up front, with tons
                      of regulations, while the Americans rely on the threat
                      of lawsuits after the fact to keep companies in line.
                      The upshot?  While it's possible for an cretin to
                      disavow personal responsibility in the US and go for an
                      insane payout, the average Joe also tends to have far
                      easier access to the law.  I'm not claming either system
                      is better, but it's something to think about before
                      completely discounting common/English law as a
                      defective system.  -John
                      \_ You forget that there are now multiple efforts
                         underway to reduce or remove people's ability to
                         sue companies.  -tom
             \_ The biggest problem IMO is the large number of CSI-style
                programs that people watch and the increasing legalese invading
                normal culture.
        \_ The punishment is death... by Unga Bunga!