The case against the Death Penalty

Let me say right off the bat that I hate Big Trials That Everyone Is Talking About... I'm sorry for Laci Peterson's fate, but this isn't national news. The only reason it is begin cast as such is because they are both good looking white folk, and it drives me to a DHP state.

Anyway, moving on...

Scott Peterson is getting the death penalty, and in giving their rationale for why they did so the jurors made a pretty good case for getting rid of the death penalty:

The jury's death penalty recommendation surprised some observers, who pointed to the lack of physical evidence tying Peterson to the killings.

But jurors who spoke to the media after Monday's recommendation say the callousness of the crime -- and Peterson's lack of emotion or remorse -- helped to condemn him. (Full story)

"It just seemed to be the appropriate justice for the crime, given the nature and how personal it really was, against his wife and his child," said jury foreman Steve Cardosi.

Juror Richelle Nice, the mother of four children, pointed to Peterson's demeanor.

"No emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words," Nice said.

"Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Conner's daddy -- the one person that should have protected them."

Did you get that? Scott Peterson wasn't sufficiently emotional, so he gets the chair. If, let's say, he had taken some acting classes in college, or perhaps had been in a school play, or had a more savvy lawyer, and he played the role of the grieving husband in order to hoodwink the jury, he might have been better off when it came to sentencing.

What bullshit!

Look, like I said before, I didn't follow the trial (in fact, I had to look up Scott Peterson's first name while writing this because I forgot it) so maybe the guy is guilty as all hell... I don't know. But what I do know is that using a random calculus in order to assign whether or not the guy lives or dies is pathetic... hell, even if a guy *did* know how to act but just happened to react to stress in a particular fashion that the jury found objectionable, then he's screwed (in fact, I have been accused in the past by significant others of being too rational and "cold" in emotional times... but that's part of how I think I handle such stresses).

Another issue here is the implicit idea that if Peterson had killed some poor schmuck instead of his pregnant wife, then that would have not have merited the death penalty ("He was the one person who should have protected them" etc.) What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?!?

The final insult is that despite previous precedents set by similar cases (i.e. lack of physical evidence, etc.), the jurors went for the death penalty... and I haven't even started on the stats showing discrimination in the application of the death penalty, the ridiculous number of overturned cases, the high monetary cost of capital punishment, and the fact that it hasn't been shown to be a deterrent. Perhaps some other post... for now, this is sufficient to keep me DHP.