Scott Peterson — The Penalty Phase

Scott Peterson is guilty. He killed his wife Laci and their unborn child Connor. To most of us in the general public it was obvious that Peterson was guilty. His actions during the search for Laci were bizarre from the start. His relationship with Amber Fry and the taped phone conversations removed any doubt as to his guilt.

Of course when he was finally arrested, he was wearing a disguise, near the Mexican border. He had a pocketful of cash, survival gear and his brother's identification. Perhaps there really was an innocent explanation, but I failed to see it.

I was glad to see that the jury was not swayed by the defense mounted by his attorney, Mark Geragos.

There were a few tense moments because the judge instructed the jury that they had the option of finding Scott guilty of second degree murder. Many analysts thought that the second degree option was to give jurors an out. The thinking being that it would be hard to get a conviction in a largely circumstantial case. Fortunately the jury was more astute (even after three juror dismissals) than the judge gave them credit with.

Scott Peterson was found guilty of second degree murder in the death of his son Connor. He was also found guilty of first degree murder in Laci's death. The combination of a first degree conviction with a second degree conviction qualifies as a special circumstance under California law — making Scott eligible for the death penalty.

The trial now enters the penalty phase where witnesses on both sides make pleas for either leniency or  severity. In this spectacle of American Jurisprudence we can expect to see tearful testimony from Laci's family and friends.

With all due respect to the Rocha, and Peterson, families — I wish they would just shut up.

Of course it isn't the families' fault. It is the law that allows families to testify in the penalty phase of a trial.  They have been given the opportunity to express their grief and it is probably even good for them. The trouble is that it is not good for the system — it is not good for us.

The emotional testimony of the grieving families lessons the force of the rule of law. Consider this case. As radio talkshow host Sean Hannity noted on the air, in every picture of Laci she is always smiling. By all accounts she was a beautiful young woman full of life. She was also pregnant with their first child.

By contrast, Scott was a lying philanderer who murdered his pregnant wife and unborn child. After hearing this testimony, Scott will certainly get the death penalty.

In summary, because Scott is a scumbag and Laci was an angel, Scott will fry.

As much as I support the outcome — I think it demeans the sanctity of the law to let this sort of emotion guide this decision.

The problem is that while murder is a crime against the victim, we punish it because it is a violation of the rule of law. The severity of the punishment reflects our societal understanding of the severity of the crime. In our society, murder is (in many states) a capital crime punishable by death. The ultimate penalty is applied to violators of the ultimate law — the Sanctity of Life.

What if Scott Peterson had planned and carried out the murder of a street person. What if the victim had been an alcoholic old man with no family or dependents. During the penalty phase of the trial there would be no tearful appeals nor videos of the beautiful young smiling victim entertaining friends. The fact is that in such a case it would be harder to get a death penalty decision than in the Laci-Connor murders.

By allowing this sort of testimony, we as a society are sending the wrong message. We are sending the message that some lives are worth more than others. Scott Peterson committed a crime and if there were no government it would be to Laci's family to punish him. But in this great nation, governed by laws, Scott has violated The Law. We are not a nation of vigilantes.

Scott deserves to die, not because Laci was a good person — Scott deserves to die because he is a bad person.