Chicagoist: "Drew Peterson Law" OK'd By State Senate

mikely1

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:35:14 -0600

We need a Star Chamber for sociopaths like Drew.

holderlaw

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:19:04 -0600

You are missing one important part of this: the law says that the party (DREW) must have been the person to have MURDERED the declarant (STACY). But that murder doesn't even need to be proved, it can basically be presumed. So it can't be that the declarant ends up dead by just anyone. It must be a murder at the hands of the person who the statement is being used against. I am also concerned with Ex Post Facto issues. How can this be applied retroactively? Although I am in favor of the amendment...

matty

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:32:29 -0600

I don't care how hated this man is. Hearsay is completely unconstitutional and goes against all previous cases in the past. If the gov can't pin this asshole then let him go. When they can do so, nail him. Until then let's not change the law as this will affect others in cases down the road.

ropesack

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:14:36 -0600

this whole story is so disturbing. the fact that this dude appears on larry king and the today show and shit.. is super jacked up.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:29:05 -0600

Shameful and stupid, but it's Springfield so don't be surprised. If they try to hang Peterson on this they might as well save the taxpayers time and money, it's bad law. The notion of the state making up new laws so they can go after individuals, even individuals as sleazy as this jamoke, should make your blood turn cold.

Scooter Libbby

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:57:24 -0600

Exactly how does this law even remotely be constitutional? Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto means after the fact. The murder[s] took place already as did any statements Peterson is supposed to have said, therefore this law is ex post facto! Doesn't the Legislature have someone on the payroll to explain this to them? Apparently not as all the lawyers down there probably voted for this bullshit law!

jennyblur

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:38:20 -0600

Are they going to apply this law retroactively? Because normally this would apply only after the law had passed? Correct?

snopup02

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:37:55 -0600

Has anyone ever noticed that Drew Peterson looks exactly like the cowardly lion? Reference the picture above against this one: If I only had the noiiiive!

Paul Coady

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:34:20 -0600

This doesn't make sense, please correct me if I'm wrong. Stacy is still "missing" and hasn't been declared dead as of yet, right? So if this law is designed to allow the "dead to speak" it doesn't apply (yet) in this case.

dwarmstr

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:33:56 -0600

Seriously, can we get legislators to be required not to vote for laws that are clearly not constitutional? How exactly can you confront the witnesses against you if they are dead?

whatever

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:16:08 -0600

As much as it pains me to agree with Justice Scalia, I don't think this will stand up to judicial challenge. See this Washington Post article Peterson's a scum bag but the Legislature should be working on more important things.

Ward Up

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:08:37 -0600

These guys trying to do an end run around the "hearsay" problem are wasting everyone's time. If they get a conviction with their fun new law, that conviction will eventually be overturned. Maybe the State Legislature should focus on running the state and stop watching television crime shows.

clark9201

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:54:18 -0600

To answer your rhetorical question: unquestionably the latter! I would love to see this smug SOB in prison where he belongs. But I am unable to believe that special attention from our state government (which incidentally, would erode away at one of the fundamental principles of our legal system) is necessary in order to put this guy where he belongs. Does anyone really think that he is capable of perpetrating such a perfect crime that this is the only way to get him?