http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/national/17peterson.html is an interesting NY Times story because it features Laci Peterson’s stepfather in a Hawaiian shirt talking about Scott’s trip to Death Row. One does not see that ever day. The article also contains
In a wrenching display toward the end of the hearing, Ms. Peterson’s mother, Sharon Rocha, assumed the roles of her daughter and the grandchild that was never born, pleading aloud in a trembling voice for “Daddy” not to kill “Mommy and me.”
Assuming the role of a cerebral palsy baby was one of John Edwards’s favorite courtroom tricks. Perhaps this will be commonplace now.
Scott Peterson is a long way from being a sympathetic figure, and there are some hard-to-believe elements in his account of
the day of his wife’s killing, but the media made as outrageous a circus of his trial as could be imagined. The victim statements, in loco, are only the appropriate last act. And frankly, the entire spectacle did nothing to elevate the respectability of California courts, dragged down by the OJ spectacle of a decade ago.
I personally believe Scott Peterson killed his wife, but the evidence presented probably did not amount to enough to justify the death penalty.
The spectacle alone will invite petitions to overturn his conviction. Facts being the same, had he been given a term of say 40 years, I doubt anyone would feel as compelled to consider a new trial request as much as they will now with him on death row.
It’s actually less expensive to lock someone up for life than it is to prosecute a capital murder case to its fruition.
The “victim’s rights” canard that fuels much of the U.S. post-conviction media frenzy has done nothing but heap more indignity on the judicial process. The judge sentences the convict. Let the judge solicit the opinions and statements of the victims in private. Or, better yet, let the court publish pre-sentencing requests of the victim’s family and anyone else deemed appropriate to make a statement before the convict is formally sentenced, and let those statements be in writing. Angry, sorrowful and bitter public denounciations of the convicted might give voice to the outrage of some, but they do so at the cost of diminishing the overall dignity of the proceeding. As it is, the media allows plenty of airtime for these expressions out of court. Sentencing is an event that should rise above the spectacle of the Jerry Springer Show.
Here’s the back door for bloggers at the New York Times. Users of this site could also use this service. This seems to be a very good deal that Aaron Swartz wrote it specifically for the New York Times. Originally pointed out by your friend ET on Ask ET.
And frankly, the entire spectacle did nothing to elevate the respectability of California courts, dragged down by the OJ spectacle of a decade ago.
I thought the OJ case exemplified the Ca court system : State fails to present a case , the accused – – – to whom the courts are required to be prejudiced – – – walks .
but . tha’s jus me . what is it ? ? ? bill of rights , or somethin – –
ojsbuddy (really?):
This has nothing to do with due process; I am referring to the dignity of the proceedings and to the laxity of some judges in their failure to maintain control over the proceedings. You need look no further than the way Judge Lance Ito managed the trial in the Simpson case, or the way the Michael Jackson case is being managed and compare it with the way Judge Matsch managed the trial of Timothy McVeigh. In none of these cases was the public denied access to the proceedings, except that in the McVeigh case, the judge did not let the media turn the courtroom into a circus.
If that judge in California had any sense, Michael Jackson wuld have an electronic ankle
bracelet for his repeated failure to comply with attendance instructions, and if he failed to comply again, he could get his “back treatments” from the county jail.
So long as foolishness of various sorts does not compromise the dispensation of justice , I will not complain of its manner of delivery. Arizona Law –which I do not celebrate – – does have a provision of Content over Form . I like that .