Its different in each state but generally what happens ( and did happen in this case) is that the jury makes a recomendation as to sentencing and then it is up to the judge to either uphold that decision or decide a different punishment. In this case, the jury voted for death and he judge upheld that ruling.
Originally posted by Clovie
there wasn't any evidence?
Originally posted by bilb
Yes, there was plenty of evidence. It was all circumstantial but seemed valid nonetheless....
If it was circumstantial evidence than he shouldn't have been convicted. As it was said before the prosecution did not supply a cause of death, any eyewitness, or any material evidence that links Scott Peterson to the crime. There is no way that someone should be convicted and sentenced to death based solely on circumstantial evidence.
The Jury did not do their job. Do I personally believe he did it? Yes. Did the Prosecution provide a case beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. The jury voted based on emotion, not solid facts.
This all shows you that something has to change. This case was a fiasco. The case against O.J. Simpson had a tonne of much evidence linking him to the crime he was charged with yet he got off. And the Michael Jackson case has become a circus that makes a joke out of the courtroom system.