Peterson Verdict

How many people spend time thinking about things that they see on the news? My guess is that most people sit in front of their TV and let programs like CNN Headline News pump in a daily dose of what is going on in the world and never really sit and contemplate the implications of what they are seeing. While a news item may spark interest, because of the rapid pace of the ever-changing news items, no one item gets a great deal of thought.

Now that the jury in the California's People vs. Scott Peterson case have completed their duty, I have found myself thinking about the case on a grander scale. It's more than the "Death Penalty" verdict that was decided upon, it is a statement to the rash of domestic homicide cases that seem to be in the news lately. Here's what I think was REALLY decided in this case:

• If a case has personal significance to the jury (i.e. a seemingly normal family from suburbia) the extent of doubt in fact and proof can easily be overshadowed by emotion. Without a murder weapon, finger prints, DNA evidence, even a witness, Scott Peterson was not only found guilty of the murder of his wife an unborn child, but has been given the most severe penalty allowed by law.
  
  The jury's dislike of the defendant, and significant empathy with the victims, made coming to this ultimate conclusion, if not easy, at least a quick task. Granted, after months of circumstantial evidence, countless expert opinions, and endless legal bantering, a great deal more time to comb over the facts of the case was unnecessary.
  
  In post trial interviews with jurists, the lack of emotion from Scott Peterson seemed to be a major factor in decided upon a death sentence. There was little mention of the preponderence of evidence, not much talk of motive/opportunity/method, but in the fact that the could not incite a response from the defendant. In fact, one reason for sending the man to his death was cited as that he never once, throughout the entire trial, spoke in open court. Because the defendant didn't personally declare his innocense, he must be guilty?
  
  
• The media frenzy. While the media in these modern times has seemed to pry into more and more otherwise personal matters, the fact that this case got so much media coverage was astounding. As a culture, are we so concerned with what is going on in other people's lives that we forget to lead out own? I haven't seen any official numbers, but using the nightly newscasts as an example, I would venture to say that the Peterson case (and the fate of one individual) got more airtime in PrimeTime newscasts than even the Presidential Election campaigns (the fate of an entire nation, and hence, the fate of the free world)
  
  During the trial, public seats were given out every morning using a lottery system. People lined up on the steps of the San Mateo court house every morning of the trial. Locals, family members, tourists, literal hordes of on-lookers. If the location of this trial was not on the front page of every newspaper in the democratic world, would it have incurred such interest? The thought I'm trying to prevoke here is: Was the world really interested in this case and its outcome? Or was it the media that told us we should be interested in it?
  
• A major point for the prosecution...when Scott was ultimately arrested, he had changed his hair color and supposedly was heading for the Mexican border with $15,000 in his pocket. While I am not questioning his guilt, the jury has already decided that, was he running from the law or from the prying eyes of the camera lenses? Was his appearance on TV talkshows a ploy to throw-off the on-going search/murder investigation or purely a chance to showboat on National TV? As it turns out, his appearance on TV was what alerted his girlfriend that he was not the guy he was claiming to be. It can be said that the media played an important role in his conviction as those very same TV appearances were entered into the prosecutions case as evidence.
  
  If media broadcasts are subject to supeona for court cases, perhaps their methods should be governed as the methods of investigators are governed. Could a case be made or broken because some cameraman from a local TV station refused to follow legal protocol in collecting evidence? A television broadcaster is bound to rules established and enforced by the FCC, but should they also be subject to rules established by the Department of Justice as any broadcast might be used as evidence in a court of law?

Perhaps I should try to think so deep. Maybe it's just the news and I should remain on my couch and continue with my voyeuristic habits peeking into other's lives through the lens of the news camera.