A trip to death row...
CNN.com - Police say red flags drove Peterson case - Mar 17, 2005
I have to admit that I don't follow sensational stories like this. I never know if what's being presented in the media is accurate or exaggerated. Is it rumor, hearsay, or is it fact from a reliable source? It's an unknown and I've seen plenty of misrepresentations in the media to make me question everything.
I couldn't make up my mind about the guilt of Scott Peterson. It was the same with OJ Simpson and Robert Blake. I just don't know. The media was slanted toward guilty but that is what makes news and sells papers, so my question was "what if he was innocent"?
Robert Blake was found not guilty by his jury while Scott Peterson was found guilty and sentenced to death. Their cases were similar and yet the outcomes varied. This is why you are judged by a panel of your peers. What made one group go one direction and the other go another is unknown to me, but all I can do is have faith in the process of justice - at least as much as one is able - and accept the decisions of the court to be the best in those situations. If Peterson is guilty, then he has been punished by his peers. If Blake is guilty, then he should be kissing the feet of whatever deity he worships because he just got a "get of jail free" card.
5 comments:
When you hear these things in the media, it is pretty lopsided as far as evidence goes because most high profile cases keep that information internal. It is only after the trial that all the facts are presented and by that time, most of it is lost in the hoopla over the sentence. I am definitely interested in hearing the details of the Blake case because from the media perspective, it sounded pretty much open and shut, he's guilty.
I agree with you Gidget. Being so close to the Peterson trial out here (Modesto is about 60 miles from here, and I've been to the Berkley Marina), the media frenzy has been outrageous. Working in law enforcement, it's been even crazier where I work.
What bugs me is, murders just as reprehesible occur everyday in the US. The ONLY thing that made the Peterson case sensational is that Lacy was a beautiful woman, and Scott is a good looking guy. That's it. If Lacy'd be a skinny, pregnent, gap toother former meth addict, and Scott had been a parolee, we would all have shrugged our collective shoulders and continued on our way.
Oh, by the way... on occasion I do have privey to the "inside information" on things that happen in our community. The media ALWAYS gets something wrong. They usually have the gist of it, but unless they've really done their homework, they almost never have all the facts straight.
I guess that is why on sensationalized trials like the Peterson trial, or any trials for that matter, I just don't pass judgement until judgement has been passed by a jury of their peers. Even then like in the case of OJ, it can be difficult to believe he is innocent after all the media coverage which pretty much dammed him from the start. I have always said that I would rather set guilty people free than to convict one innocent person.
The difference about the OJ trail that I think outraged people is that we watched it live, and saw the exact same evidence the jury did. I was almost obsessed with it at the time. And I was convinved beyond doubt OJ was guilty. I coudn't understand how the jury could see the same evidence I did, and find him not guilty. But that's life.
I'm glad they don't televise the big trials anymore. I think it's a bad idea.
Post a Comment