Exact Approximations

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Taking the Lifted Admonition to the Next Level

I think it's great that jurors are permitted to talk after trial has concluded. This way, people like me can attempt to corner them, ask questions, get at their psyche, learn what they're thinking, etc, etc.

But, now, is it just me, or is it kinda weird when a juror becomes pen-pals with someone they sent to death row?

Richelle Nice, Juror in the infamous Laci Peterson murder case, wrote Scott a letter. At the advice of her therapist. Apparently, she wanted to ask Scott why he killed his wife and tell him how it had turned Nice's life upside down. The letter was meant to be an "exercise," but then Nice sent the thing.

Lo and Behold - Scott wrote back. The two have exchanged about two dozen letters since then...

I want to see the contents of these letters. If you're writing someone you convicted to say "hey, why did you do it man?" - and they respond by reasserting their innocence... Why keep writing? Is this what your therapist would recommend?

This may be one of those crazy inmate prison love stories waiting to happen. I can see it now... "Former Peterson juror does an about face - Scott is innocent - and she wants to marry him!!!"

Television movie waiting to happen.

posted by Lex Fori at 4:28 PM

7 Comments:

  • Lex, should this happen, and he is let free to walk the streets again....his death sentence would be completed by the people of California much quicker than through the appeals process!

    Just think of the tax savings!

    Arnold, can you say "Pardon"!?

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 8:11 PM  

  • Lex
    I don't know if you know who Danielle Steel is but she married a man in prison and then wrote about it. Now look where she is. Must be something to it. I find it amazing how many women marry men behind bars. Ug
    Loony Tunes Aunt

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:31 PM  

  • CECA has a friend from high school, who is married to someone behind bars in Atica. She is coming over for Memorial Day. He is up for parole this year.

    We met him last summer when we were on the houseboat, went over for a visit. He is extremely intelligent, but not in the Lex Luther way, but in a scholarly way. I would say she found a diamond in the rough. I hope he gets out soon, as he is the type of person who I could enjoy sitting around with a few beers discussing philosophy and other mind-bending topics.

    As for Danielle Steel, I had a girlfriend in high school who babysat for Danielle Steel (while we were going out.) No - I have never read any of her books.

    Philosophically speaking, everyone has the right to find happiness wherever they choice. While it may not be your cup of tea, it works for someone else!

    On a completely different topic:
    I found a new definition for sin that I think is excellent:

    Sin - to deny the desire to grow.

    I found this recently, I forget where - one of those wild websites that I like to check out. However, it suits me just fine. your comments?

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 5:33 AM  

  • I think the sin definition works if you separate it out from "wrong"

    I mean, I think of "sin" and I think of guilt-ridden three hour Hail Mary & Our Father sessions because I saw a cute boy and wondered what it would be like to kiss him. Under those circumstances - where religion tries to stiffle natural desire to explore - your definition gets the green light.

    But in some situations, a classic "sin" also qualifies as what I think is a classic "wrong" - like killing someone. In that case, I don't see a legitimate "desire to grow"

    In other news, I want a shirt I saw recently that says "WTFWJD" - What the Fuck Would Jesus Do"

    And don't lie - I know you love to curl up with some Danielle Steel smut on a warm summer afternoon.

    I agree abour prison people. Some of the most interesting/intelligent people I have known have done time.
    It's the whole "writing to the guy I put no death row" part that weirds me out a little. This woman had a mental breakdown due, in part, to the stress the Peterson case caused her. I just don't see how her communication with him helps. I dreamt last night that I was at a theme park abnd Scott Peterson was there, asking me to dinner. I totally wanted to take him up on it just to try to break into the mind of a killer... Weird.

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 11:49 AM  

  • If you kill someone, then you are definitely Denying someone's desire to grow! I think the definition fits this example.

    Nope, never read Danielle Steele! Scouts honor...not that I ever was or wanted to be a scout, but it sounds good!

    About the Peterson thing...The lady from the jury has some problems that she needs to get out of her systme, if writing to scotty does that for her, so be it! You having a dream about him asking you to dinner, and your flirtation with the idea to get into the mind of a killer, wow, I think you need more blogging time...as you say, it is cheaper than therapy!

    Breaking into the mind of a killer, is this supposed to be a good thing, or a rush, or what? Enlighten me!

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 5:03 PM  

  • I don't see that it fits the example for the individual. If you try to correlate the terms by thinking of the act having to stay with the actor, then the one doing the murder is not at the same time stifling his own growth... That's where I'm having the difficulty seeing that a sin is always denying one's own desire to grow. I suppose you can play semantic math and twist it how you like, but I think there are genuinely "wrong" things that would qualify as a sin and at the same time not be stifling a desire to grow.

    As for my dreams, I don't chalk it up to anything more than having thought about Scott Peterson and the thought process behind wanting to get behind his thought process. Don't think I have some weird Danielle Steel-like desire for him... Now, that would be a sin!

    I swear CECU, sometimes I think you say things just to start arguments with me. Don't you have CECA for that

    Burn.

    ;)

    By Blogger Lex Fori, at 6:54 PM  

  • Let's go back to the definition. No where does it limit the actions of one to that individual person. "To deny the desire to grow," means for yourself, and others. Ancient Wiccan has a similar term: "Harm no one." This doesn't just mean other people, but yourself as well. Therefore, in your previous example, killing is denying someone's desire to grow, not to mention their desire to live. "To deny the desire to grow," encompasses all living things, including you! I hope that clears up the smantic math for you.

    Now, with that said, can you think of "wrong" things that would qualify as a sin and at the same time not be denying a desire to grow?

    I swear, Lex, I know you say things just to start arguments with me (it is in the blood!) CECA wins 50% of the time, as do you :)

    As for the Peterson thing...I was in court for my own devorce - child custody issues - at the same court house in San Mateo during the same time as the Peterson trial. I got to see all of the media craziness. At the time I compared myself to him, in that phrase, "There, but for the grace of God, walks I" or something like that. Unlike him, I decided to deal with the issues without violence. I have had horrible thoughts about revenge on my X for some of the things that she has done to me, but, I never acted on them. I suppose lots of people, male and female have had horrible thoughts about what they would like to do to their X's but they don't act on those thoughts. The question I would ask of him, is Why? Why did you do it, when most other people decide against the violence? Divorce court is not fun, but, then, neither is death row! Was there no logic involved, or did he actually think he could get away with it! Basically, he is just a loser! What more needs to be said about him? I don't find the mind of a loser to be something that I wish to deal with at all.

    By Blogger Crazy East Coast Uncle, at 8:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home