Delftsman

Peterson recommended for the needle

I have some difficuty with this post. Scott Peterson was recommended for the death penalty by the same jury that convicted him.

I do believe that Mr. Peterson was guilty of the crime that he was charged with, but I also believe that the State did not present a case that was sound enough to get a conviction, much less the death penalty.

What is a law and order conservative to think when he believes a defendant is guilty, but the prosecutor fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt?

And there ARE many reasonable doubts in the way the circumstantial evidence was presented in this case. Adding the death penalty into the mix only compounds the dilema.

I can only hope in my mind that the jury was presented with facts not presented to the public at large that tipped the scales towards conviction and death sentence, despite the prosecutors inept public presentation.

I'm all for those guilty of heinious crimes getting a fitting end for their transgressions, but the death penalty should be used only when there isn't ANY doubt about the guilt of the defendant. That isn't true in this case.

I also wonder if Mr. Peterson could truly have a fair trial with all the pre-trial media exposure. The defendant's right to a fair trial was overshadowed by the public's "right to know"in this case, IMHO.

So, a man I believe to be guilty is convicted in a trial I believe to have been unfairly (to him) publicised and poorly prosecuted, should I be happy that a guilty man was convicted, or should I be worried that the justice system has been subverted by the court of public opinion, just on the off chance that he is innocent? After all, you or I may be the next one in the defendants chair, and I would hope that we would not be unfairly judged.

Posted by Delftsman3 at December 14, 2004 12:30 AM