Peterson Murder Trial - Legal Injustice

[Free Capitalist]

Explaining why the jurors recommended the death penalty for Scott Peterson, FoxNews writes:

"No single piece of evidence led Scott Peterson's 12 jurors to decide he killed his pregnant wife nearly two years ago, but several said they were struck by Peterson's stoic nature."

So let me get the straight. We have no conclusive evidence of the guy's guilt, but we don't like how sits during his own trial for life, so we'll kill him anyway, just to be sure.

I wonder if anyone of those jurors has ever heard of the phrase "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

Peterson may have done some disagreeable things, like not testify for his own innocence, and there is some circumstantial evidence that may or may not tie him to the murder, but there is room for doubt. Our justice system was for the first time in history built upon the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and there is room for doubt in this case, so he has to go free. Or, if the circumstantial evidence is that strong and the room for doubt is there but a very small one, slap a few years of prison on him. But using personal dislike of the defendant as the primary cause for deciding his guilt, and moreover, sentencing this man to die, when basing his guilt on tremendously strong and objective premises such as this, is depressing.

And the fact that of the big pundits in the media (such as O'Reilly) no one has expressed outrage about the reasons behind the verdict, or even observed there's a problem, is just ... unbelievable.

[punk]

Unfortunately most Americans don't appreciate what "innocent until proven guilty" really means.

The fact is that most juries approach a case in the mind of "guilty until proven innocent". Most people seem to think that if a person is arrested for a crime then that person must be guilty, so if the person goes free then it must be a failure of the justice system.

Personally I think the "Vigilantism" thread elsewhere on this board displays this same mind frame.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

"No single piece of evidence led Scott Peterson's 12 jurors to decide he killed his pregnant wife nearly two years ago, but several said they were struck by Peterson's stoic nature."

So let me get the straight. We have no conclusive evidence of the guy's guilt, but we don't like how sits during his own trial for life, so we'll kill him anyway, just to be sure.

This was the first thing I noticed about the news covering the verdict as well… and yes it is bad. By a humanitarian standard being guilty won’t get you killed but being stoic will. I don’t know much about the evidence against him though… how inconclusive was it?

[Toolboxnj]

Yes. I've been sickened by the whole trial as well.

He was a terrible character, but you need more to send a man to his death.

Was watching FoxNews as well, and they called this jury "the anti-OJ" jury as if they looked for guilt where it didn't exist.

Unfortunatly, you're right though. Peterson did nothing to help his cause at all.

[Bryan]

Yes.  I've been sickened by the whole trial as well. 

The only thing that sickened me about the trial is how wrapped up everyone was with it.

He was a terrible character, but you need more to send a man to his death. 

Was watching FoxNews as well, and they called this jury "the anti-OJ" jury as if they looked for guilt where it didn't exist. 

There is no way to tell what evidence was presented during the trial and or what went on in the jury room, based on the news coverage of it on FoxNews. All the evidence that any of us have about the trial is based on what the media has given us, we have no idea exactly what was presented to the jury.

Unfortunatly, you're right though.  Peterson did nothing to help his cause at all.

In my mind, the thing that was most damning for him were the circumstances of his arrest. If he was truly innocent, why was he arrested in San Diego (miles from the Mexican border) with dyed hair, newly grown facial hair, $10,000 cash, and a passport?

[Zoso]

Woah, woah woah...no evidence? There was plenty of evidence...it was just mostly circumstantial. I have absolutely no qualms about seeing this man be sent to his death. The jurors have come out and stated that they have absolutely no doubts regarding his guilt. This is what they used to convict him. In the sentencing phase, emotion came into play...and, in sentencing, emotion is not entirely out of place, because the proper sentence cannot be determined by adding up evidence. That's what the guilt phase is for, and I believe the jurors did a superb job.

[DavidV]

The only thing that sickened me about the trial is how wrapped up everyone was with it.

There is no way to tell what evidence was presented during the trial and or what went on in the jury room, based on the news coverage of it on FoxNews.  All the evidence that any of us have about the trial is based on what the media has given us, we have no idea exactly what was presented to the jury.

..exactly. I was so sick of the trial, I actually switched to (gasp) CNN for my news.

[blueyedviking]

Explaining why the jurors recommended the death penalty for Scott Peterson, FoxNews writes:

"No single piece of evidence led Scott Peterson's 12 jurors to decide he killed his pregnant wife nearly two years ago, but several said they were struck by Peterson's stoic nature."

I would suggest that in most murder cases, there is no "single piece of evidence" that convicts someone. It is usually a matter of some of this evidence and some of that evidence.

Woah, woah woah...no evidence? There was plenty of evidence...it was just mostly circumstantial. I have absolutely no qualms about seeing this man be sent to his death. The jurors have come out and stated that they have absolutely no doubts regarding his guilt. This is what they used to convict him. In the sentencing phase, emotion came into play...and, in sentencing, emotion is not entirely out of place, because the proper sentence cannot be determined by adding up evidence. That's what the guilt phase is for, and I believe the jurors did a superb job.

Well said Zoso.

There is no way to tell what evidence was presented during the trial and or what went on in the jury room, based on the news coverage of it on FoxNews. All the evidence that any of us have about the trial is based on what the media has given us, we have no idea exactly what was presented to the jury.

Thank you Bryan, I think that this is a point that is missed by far too many people.

[Free Capitalist]

Guys, you're missing the point here. The explanation of the jurors was not, "We found the bloody glove in Scott Peterson's house, and a murder weapon in his closet bearing traces of the victims matching those of Lacy. Based upon this evidence we have convicted him of guilt, and based upon his remorseless bearing during the trial we sentence him to die."

The actual argument went something more like this: "We have.. uhh.. witnesses saying they saw Scott on that day, although none of those witnesses were anywhere near the vicinity of the corpse... and based upon his schedule he might have sort of have been just passing by, or might have been involved in something more nefarious... plus he might have could have had some sort of possible motive because of this other woman, but then again maybe not... so.. uh... that's pretty much all we got... but hey he looked like an emotionless stone in the courtroom, so let's fry the sexist pig."

[Cole]

The quote was in reference to the sentencing phase of the trial. At this point, he had already been found guilty, and it was no longer the jury's duty to examine the evidence supporting his guilt. Matters of character should be considered in the sentencing phase, and it was. It was the jury's job to make a decision given the fact that he is legally guilty of the crime.

Also, there was a lot more evidence in support of his guilt than you make it seem. Perhaps living in the region of the state in which this all took place exposed me to better media coverage of the trial. How do you explain, for example, the audio recording of a conversation between Scott and his girlfriend in which he told her that he knows who killed his wife?

[Cole]

Here is a good summary of the prosecution's evidence in the case.

[DavidOdden]

The quote was in reference to the sentencing phase of the trial.  At this point, he had already been found guilty, and it was no longer the jury's duty to examine the evidence supporting his guilt. Matters of character should be considered in the sentencing phase, and it was.  It was the jury's job to make a decision given the fact that he is legally guilty of the crime.

That is the law, but the law is wrong on this important point. Whereas a wrongly imposed punishment can be immediately ended when it is shown that the conviction was in error, with the death penalty, the error can never be overcome. The prosecution's evidence is entirely circumstantial, and does make a reasonable case that Peterson did murder his wife. But the standard for conviction is not simply making a reasonable case. The jury failed to follow the legal standard for a conviction -- the evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peterson comitted the crime.

Note b.t.w. that the death penalty is possible in this case only because "special circumstances" were declared, in that is was claimed that he also murdered the unborn fetus. Only people can be murdered, so you can deduce from this that in California, a fetus is held to be a person.

[Free Capitalist]

Cole, yes that's a very good summary. In fact, here's a very good summation from the title of that page:

"The mysterious fishing trip, the illicit affair, the odd behavior, the numerous lies. Is it enough to convict?"

Do all of these things, especially that objective standard known as "the odd behavior", prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Don't tell me you answer is "yes".

It's obvious that something is a little fishy in all the little discrepancies listed on that site. But circumstantial evidence, by nature, is at the same time very easy to acquire and also highly unreliable; and I simply cannot find justification for sentencing a man to die, when even the circumstantial evidence against him cannot prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt.

But my biggest problem is not with the jury, because you can always find people who don't understand how the adjudication of justice ought to work (or who've never seen "12 Angry Men"). My problem is with the intellectual media pundits, all of whom gave a sigh of relief that this annoying trial was over, and explained graciously that the final, and most important, nail on Scott's coffin was his attitude. "The redhead [juror] especially hates Peterson" O'Relly 'explained' to his audience as one of the factors that contributed to his conviction. I couldn't believe what I heard from him, he was so happy it's over that he glossed over a horrible injustice. I found the trial to be annoying too, but its conclusion has been very disturbing to me, while I saw everywhere on tv a sigh of relief. By O'Reilly's own standard, he would be convicted to die even for stealing a candybar, because he's hated by half the country (and loved by the other half). Yes let's make decisions of justice based on how we feel about the defendants. Did they all forget that somber and august Lady Justice, holding a sword in one hand and a balance of scales in the other, and wearing a blindfold over her eyes?

[AisA]

But the standard for conviction is not simply making a reasonable case. The jury failed to follow the legal standard for a conviction -- the evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peterson comitted the crime.

I thought it was only necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could convict on purely circumstantial evidence, but I do not think I could ever sentence someone to death on that basis. In any event, the sentence Peterson has received may be worse than death -- permanent "life" on death row. California currently has some 640 inmates on death row and is only executing one or two per year.

By the way, how could the jury find Peterson guilty of first-degree murder for the death of Laci, but only second-degree murder for the death of the unborn child?

[ramKatori]

"The mysterious fishing trip, the illicit affair, the odd behavior, the numerous lies. Is it enough to convict?"

Do all of these things, especially that objective standard known as "the odd behavior", prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Don't tell me you answer is "yes".

It convinces me completely. While "Free Capitalist" is shocked that anyone can be convinced about Scott's Petersen guilt, I'm shocked that anyone can have a reasonable doubt. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I cannot understand what more would be required to convince someone that Mr. Petersen was guilt.

[DavidOdden]

I thought it was only necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, yes -- the more traditional expression is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the expression "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is also used to refer to the same thing. What is more important is what that means, and how the jury understood the instructions, which if I'm not mistaken is standard in California, and say regarding circumstantial evidence (taken from the Simpson instructions):

However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusions. Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish a defendant's guilt must be proved beyound a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establishing guilt may be found to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count is susceptible to two reasonable interpretatoins, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt the interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject the interpretation which points to his guilt.

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Peterson is not an experienced fisherman. Neither was my grandfather, which does not make either of them murderers. They were in debt -- along with millions of other Americans. The jury seems to be thinking that it's not reasonable to think that an innocent person could be both a bad fisherman and in debt.

By the way, how could the jury find Peterson guilty of first-degree murder for the death of Laci, but only second-degree murder for the death of the unborn child?

Either the jury was insane, or they simply decided to ignore the law. The only possible way to conclude that the death of the fetus was not premeditated would be if you believed that Peterson did not understand that killing his wife would result in the death of the fetus, and then during the act, he decided to also kill the fetus. If he was truly unaware of the causal relationship between killing a pregnant woman and the death of a fetus, then the strongest conviction possible would be third degree murder (which does not allow the death penalty). At any rate, nothing resembling either of those arguments was made, and the jury would have to be insane to believe such an argument. So we have to conclude that the jury decided to convict for a less serious crime for some irrelevant reason. I think it provides evidence that the jury did not feel bound by the law, allowing them to disregard the law of lenity.

[AisA]

Thanks for the explanation, David. One more question, do you have any idea what happened with the two jurors that got replaced?

[Free Capitalist]

I cannot understand what more would be required to convince someone that Mr. Petersen was guilt.

Umm... as I said in a previous post, a bloody glove would help, so would a murder weapon stashed away in his closet.

[Cole]

That is the law, but the law is wrong on this important point.

I don't understand what specifically you think is wrong about it.

Whereas a wrongly imposed punishment can be immediately ended when it is shown that the conviction was in error, with the death penalty, the error can never be overcome.

Sure it can. Many people on death row appeal their case to multiple courts. Some have even won their appeal and been released. Here in California, the average length of time that a person is on death row is 20 years.

Note b.t.w. that the death penalty is possible in this case only because "special circumstances" were declared, in that is was claimed that he also murdered the unborn fetus. Only people can be murdered, so you can deduce from this that in California, a fetus is held to be a person.

A fetus isn't held to be a person, but the murder of either a person or a fetus is illegal. The penal code reads:

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

[Cole]

Do all of these things, especially that objective standard known as "the odd behavior", prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Don't tell me you answer is "yes".

Yes they do. The odd behavior alone doesn't prove his guilt. It was included in the overall presentation of evidence.

The prosecution has proved multiple motives. They're proved premeditation. They've placed him at the scene of the crime at the time it took place. They've found the murder weapon. They've proved the odd behavior after the crime, as would be consistent with somebody who murdered his wife (interfering with the search process, changing his appearance and attempting to evade the country immediately after the bodies were found, etc.)

You should also consider why, if he were innocent, he would continually refuse to take a polygraph test.

[Cole]

Umm... as I said in a previous post, a bloody glove would help, so would a murder weapon stashed away in his closet.

You have to consider the nature of the crime. Strangling somebody and drowning them would not leave blood evidence. The type of murder weapons that would be involved in a crime like this would be things such as a boat (such as the one he bought not long before the crime, but didn't tell anybody about), weights (such as the multiple experimental anchors he made out of concrete that were found at his home), and evidence of force (such as the strands of Laci's hair that were found on a pair of pliers on the boat that she never even knew about).

[DavidOdden]

I don't understand what specifically you think is wrong about it.

What is wrong is that no stronger proof of guilt is required in order to execute a person. Given that juries increasingly vote their hearts and not their minds and that they do not follow the law of lenity in interpreting evidence, it would be totally appropriate to re-examine the evidence in deciding the penalty, when death is an option. The fact that juries often convict innocent people and that the system does recognise a distinction between "more or less guilty" vs. "really and truly guilty" is why the death penalty should not be allowed.

{death cannot be canceled, more or less}

Sure it can.  Many people on death row appeal their case to multiple courts.  Some have even won their appeal and been released.  Here in California, the average length of time that a person is on death row is 20 years.

And for all of those people who have been executed, they can never be un-executed. Saying that the death penalty isn't really a death penalty because it either takes 20 years to impose or because some people are exhonorated is avoiding reality. Execution is a penalty which, if imposed, is irrevocable.

A fetus isn't held to be a person, but the murder of either a person or a fetus is illegal.  The penal code reads:

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

That's California's perversion of the concept. It's like passing a law that says a poor man stealing from a rich man henceforth isn't guilty of theft, he is guilty of misdemeanor panhandling. Murder is the intentional killing of a person, plain and simple, and the California legislature cannot change that by special redefinition. Given that fact, if the government now says that killing a fetus is murder, then the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the state has essentially declared the fetus to be a person.

[Free Capitalist]

Cole, if you believe that "odd behavior" is an objective piece of evidence against the defendant, then our concepts of what an objective practice of justice entails are so different that we're better off agreeing to disagree. As my final word with you on the subject, I will point out that the Lady Justice has a blindfold for a very special reason. In fact I would even say, for a very precious reason.

[Cole]

What is wrong is that no stronger proof of guilt is required in order to execute a person. Given that juries increasingly vote their hearts and not their minds and that they do not follow the law of lenity in interpreting evidence, it would be totally appropriate to re-examine the evidence in deciding the penalty, when death is an option. The fact that juries often convict innocent people and that the system does recognise a distinction between "more or less guilty" vs. "really and truly guilty" is why the death penalty should not be allowed.

That may very well be true. However, in this particular case, there was adequate evidence to prove that he committed the crime. Even if the jury neglected all of this evidence and made their judgement entirely on their emotional stance towards Scott Peterson (which is obviously the wrong way to make a decision), this doesn't change the fact that the evidence proving his guilt really does exist. When determining whether or not he is guilty, it is the evidence supporting the claim that should be evaluated- not the comments that the jury made regarding their opinions of him. Although the jury may very well have used subjective, irrational methods to attempt to discover the truth, the jury's decision is irrelevant to his metaphysical guilt.

And for all of those people who have been executed, they can never be un-executed. Saying that the death penalty isn't really a death penalty because it either takes 20 years to impose or because some people are exhonorated is avoiding reality. Execution is a penalty which, if imposed, is irrevocable.

Isn't this true for any penalty? Once you spend a life in jail, you can never get this time back. Once you spend five years in jail, you can never get that five years back. Once you spend a day in jail, you can never get that day back. I don't understand your implication that penalties other than the death penalty are somehow revocable.

Would you oppose the sentencing of any jail time at all, since it's always possible that judgement could have been poorly and wrongfully made and thereby resulting in irrevocable, undue punishment? This seems to be your argument in opposition to the death penalty. I would argue that it's applicable to all judicial punishment, and not a good enough argument to warrant the abolishment of such a system.

I didn't say that the death penalty isn't really a death penalty. If a person sentenced to death is unable to offer new evidence that may allow a jury to better determine the truth, or unable to prove a mistrial, then they should expect to be (and should be) executed. My point was that defendants are not taken out back and executed immediately after they are sentenced to death. They have plenty of time to make multiple appeals and prove that a mistrial took place- if that was truly the case.

That's California's perversion of the concept. It's like passing a law that says a poor man stealing from a rich man henceforth isn't guilty of theft, he is guilty of misdemeanor panhandling. Murder is the intentional killing of a person, plain and simple, and the California legislature cannot change that by special redefinition. Given that fact, if the government now says that killing a fetus is murder, then the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the state has essentially declared the fetus to be a person.

I agree. A fetus is not an entity seperate from the woman carrying it, and therefore does not have individual rights.

I suspect that you would agree that it is job of legislature to deal with such laws, and not juries. It is the job of the jury to make decisions under the pre-existing laws as they are written. In this case, the law says that destroying a fetus is an act that falls into the category of the crime "murder." The jury was acting in accordance with this law, as is their job.

[Cole]

Cole, if you believe that "odd behavior" is an objective piece of evidence against the defendant, then our concepts of what an objective practice of justice entails are so different that we're better off agreeing to disagree. As my final word with you on the subject, I will point out that the Lady Justice has a blindfold for a very special reason. In fact I would even say, for a very precious reason.

I don't see why it wouldn't be an objective piece of evidence against the defendant. Why shouldn't the fact that Scott Peterson sold Laci's car right after she went missing be considered in the case? Why shouldn't the fact that, after saying he was going to put up "Missing" posters, Scott Peterson actually drove to a mall parking lot, sat there for 45 minutes, and then threw the posters away- be considered in the case? Why shouldn't the fact that, after the discovery of the bodies, he immediately changed his appearance, rented a car in his mother's name, withdrawl large sums of cash, and then made a run for the border- be considered in the case? This behavior is all consistent with somebody who committed the crime, and should be evaluated. How could more factual details being considered ever result in a worse understanding of the truth?

As I said, this evidence alone does not prove his guilt. It's part of a larger case. I don't see how the consideration of this evidence would create something other than "an objective practice of justice."

Somebody asked you earlier what you think would be necessary in order to prove Scott Peterson's guilt (a question I also wondered). Your only answer was; the evidence of a murder weapon. I explained how there was evidence of a murder weapon linked to Scott Peterson, as consistent with the nature of the crime. I am curious as to what more it would take in order to convince you of his guilt.

It's unfortunate for the both of us that you no longer wish to pursue this discussion.