Would you spit at his mother?

by Amazing1914 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing1914
    Amazing1914

    As Scott Peterson's mother exited the courthouse, where she heard the jury pronounce her son guilty of murder, the crowd moved in on her, jeered and booed her, and some spit at her.

    Scott certainly appears guilty and the jury who heard the evidence thought so. I believe in the death penalty, but not in purely circumstantial cases like Scott Peterson's. So, I favor life in prison, to give him opportunity either repent and pay his punishment, or to prove his innocence ... if he can.

    However, to stand outside a court house to cheer at the verdict seems rather inane and ludricris. But, then to spit on the guy's mother seems cruel and heartless. She has a triple burden to bear. She lost her daughter-in-law, whom she loved. She will lose her son to prison or execution. And she will, in a way, be shamed because of his guilt. I see no point in spitting on her. - Jim W.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Greetings, fellow-morning-person. I hope my cheerful morning greeting is taken in the spirit of fellow-feeling (Proverbs 27:14).

    I agree with you. To spit on someone is to treat them as less than human. Nobody deserves that.

  • Mecurious?
    Mecurious?

    I believe in the death penalty, but not in purely circumstantial cases like Scott Peterson's. So, I favor life in prison, to give him opportunity either repent and pay his punishment, or to prove his innocence ... if he can.

    Exactly!

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    I believe in the death penalty, but not in purely circumstantial cases like Scott Peterson's. So, I favor life in prison, to give him opportunity either repent and pay his punishment, or to prove his innocence ... if he can.

    If the evidence is only circumstantial, then he shouldn't have to prove his innocence. He should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

    The death penalty should not be for people who are definitely guilty with the option of life imprisonment for those who might be innocent. Whatever the level of punishment, only the guilty should receive it.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    If the evidence is only circumstantial, then he shouldn't have to prove his innocence. He should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

    The death penalty should not be for people who are definitely guilty with the option of life imprisonment for those who might be innocent. Whatever the level of punishment, only the guilty should receive it.

    Double contradiction (A-B-A') in three sentences. Congrats.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    Double contradiction (A-B-A') in three sentences. Congrats.

    I don't see any contradiction.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Really?

    So where should one who has not been proven guilty be? In jail for life imprisonment (B) or free of any punishment (A-A')?

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    So where should one who has not been proven guilty be? In jail for life imprisonment (B) or free of any punishment (A-A')?

    Free of any punishment. On rereading it, I realise the second sentence is a little unwieldy. The clause you highlighted is intended to be negated by the "not" earlier in the sentence, so that the meaning would be that life imprisonment should not be an option for those who may be innocent. I hope that makes things clearer.

  • Eyebrow2
    Eyebrow2

    That is just sick to spit on her. She also lost a grandchild. I can only imagine the torment he has put her and his father through.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Oops. I apologise for misreading you and reacting abruptly to what I thought you were saying.

    Btw, I just came across a quite funny and interesting article on the subject:

    http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/guilty.htm

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit