Scott Peterson

OK, I need to start here with a disclaimer: I have not been following the Scott Peterson trial very closely. . .ok, I haven't been following the Scott Peterson trial at all. All I know is whatever I sat through on the various news networks while waiting for them to get back to apparently less important subjects like the election. So i apologize for any possible factual inaccuracies.

Yesterday afternoon, the jury delivered its sentencing recommendation in the murder case of Scott Peterson. The choice was between life in prison or the death penalty for the recently convicted Peterson, and the jury chose death. This group of twelve of Scott Peterson's peers were convinced, based on what they knew (and, admittedly, their feelings about him), that Scott Peterson does not deserve to live. I have had serious problems with this entire case from the very beginning, and my criticisms come from a couple of different fronts. First, lets approach it from a media criticism perspective, since many of the other problems essentially stem from there. From the very beginning, it seemed strange to me that the national media latched on to this case so rabidly. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that people kill their wives on a far more regular basis than the national media would have you think. It happens all the time, but why did this case get singled out? Answer: they're white, she was pregnant, and they were wealthy relative to most other wife murderers. And even if you accept that these factors make this case worthy of such heavy national coverage, there was still an absurdly disproportionate amount of coverage considering that there was an election this year. Oh yeah, and there's a war going on in Iraq last time I checked (Though you might not know it if you listen to the president). Bottom line here: the national media made this a much bigger deal than it ever should have been for the sake of tabloid ratings.

That being said, we should discuss the impact that such ridiculous coverage had on the public perception of the trial. I refer to an episode of Dennis Miller's CNBC show from about a month ago. One of his guests was a "legal expert" who was to discuss the ins and outs of the case, which was still in the trial phase. Dennis Miller began that segment much like I began this piece, admitting that he had not been following the case at all. The woman gave her "expert" legal analysis of the case and answered a couple of broad questions while Miller sprinkled in jokes here and there. After she answered his last question, Miller, not three minutes after claiming that he knows nothing about the case, commented, "Well, I think he should get the death penalty, but that's probably just wishful thinking." What? Wishful thinking that someone you admittedly know very little about should die? Man, that's sick. But it was and is a very popular sentiment. Most people completely agree with this verdict and sentence.

Now I know that many people have followed this case very closely and feel completely justified in their opinion that Peterson was certainly guilty and that he should receive the death penalty. However, many more people have followed this case as a soap opera. Folks like Dennis Miller seemed predisposed to hating the guy and wanting him to die even if they didn't know anything about the case. And lets keep in mind that this was a case in which the prosecution produced no murder weapon and no witness, yet they were able to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty. And don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to defend this guy or defend his positions, alibis, or anything. All I'm saying is that I don't know enough about the case and the evidence that I am familiar with does not prove anything to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. And I think that many trial watchers who condemned from early on didn't know enough either. So the jurors, who certainly are more aware of the case than any of us, were able to infer that he was guilty despite the lack of murder weapon and witness. And on top of that, they felt justified enough in their decision that they felt it necessary to recommend the death penalty. What exactly was it that made them choose death over life in prison? Because "he showed no remorse," said one juror. Another said, "He lost his wife and his child and it didn’t seem to faze him." And I suppose once he's been proven guilty, reasoning for life over prison vs. death can be reasoned based on emotion, but it seems like a slippery slope. Especially since emotion and feeling seems like it very much played a role in coming to the guilty verdict considering the lack of physical evidence.

It should be noted that it is highly unlikely that Scott Peterson will actually die by the death penalty. The appeals process in California is such that there are about 600 people on death row with an execution rate of about one per year. I am opposed to the death penalty in just about any situation, but I bring this issue up not to be critical of the death penalty. My feeling is simply that this case was not a slam dunk, yet he was convicted and even sentenced to death. And the public's response? Hooray! And I think that when media figures (and I mention only Dennis Miller because he's one of the few I can stomach) blindly yet publicly condemn Peterson and proclaim him to be guilty, then it inevitably influences a public that is highly susceptible to sensationalism. One has to question how fair a trial this has been when the public and media have approached it with the mentality of a lynch mob.

And how about this little piece of Boolean irony: Most conservatives are for the death penalty. Conservatives often criticize liberals for making decisions based on emotion and feeling as opposed to reason and truth. Most conservatives agree with and applaud the decision in this case - one made based heavily on emotion and feeling.

Thankfully, the case is over, and the mainstream media can start to regain its credibility. Wait. . .you say the Michael Jackson case is about to really kick off? Damn. Nevermind.