Aren't we lucky to live in North America where the Adversarial system of justice makes sure the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free? We should be so proud to live in a country with such an infalliable system - we rid the streets of the bad guys and its justice for all, not just for some...
...In case you didn't pick up on it, that was
sarcasm.
Cases like that of Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his 8 year old neighbor and spent 20 years in jail, should be more than enough reason to doubt our system. To err is human, but to err because of some asshole cop who was determined to incarcerate the "odd kid next door" so much that he planted physical evidence at the crime scene is not. Police tunnel vision is a dangerous game. When a/ cop(s) is/are so dead set in convicting the first suspect who only slightly fits the profile innocent people end up locked away.
And its not just the police who contribute to wrongful convictions. When you have a high profile case thats been publicized to death ie. OJ Simpson, biased jurors come to play and people are looking for blood. The demand for a guilty verdict, especially in cases of child abuse/murder, can easily influence a jury and a judge. This creates an unfair balance in the system that favors the prosecution and the innocent suffer for it. Thats not to say that all individuals who go to court for murder are innocent, but for the ones who are this shift in balance can be detrimental to the case.
I've been following the Scott Peterson case since the beginning and I must say, I am completely appalled by it. Am I appalled by the act itself? Yes. Am I appalled by the brutality that was inflicted upon Laci and her unborn child? Like any good citizen, yes. Am I appalled by the guilty verdict given to Scott this past week? Damn right.
...
WAIT!
Did she just say she was
APPALLED by the guilty verdict??? This guy, in case anyone has forgotten, murdered his wife (nearly decapitating her) and their unborn child then tossed them into the San Fransico Bay. ...or did he?
Maybe.
However, "maybe" isn't good enough. And "maybe" certainly isnt good enough when a man's life is on the line.
Our justice system is based on the fact that
everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution holds the burden of proof to show that the accused committed the act
beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean 40 - 60, 20 - 80, 1 - 99 - it means
100% there is no possible way that the accused did not committ the crime. Scott Peterson was charged and convicted of the first degree murder of his wife Laci and the second degree murder of their unborn son, Conner. Her body and that of the fetus washed up on shore four months after going missing the Christmas eve of last year. The police arressted Scott upon suspicion, they had NO DNA evidence, NO eyewitnesses and NO physical evidence to tie him to the scene. It makes you wonder why they arrested him in the first place.
THE PROSECUTIONS STRATEGY
The prosecution's strategy was basically this: since they couldn't prove that Scott is a murderer due to lack of DNA evidence at the crime scene and eyewitnesses, they proved that he was a liar and an adulterer. His mistress, the massage therapist, was the clincher for the prosecution's case against him. By showing the jury that Scott was a deplorable individual who was capable of cheating on his wife who was carrying their child they managed to convince them that he was also then capable of murder. Capability and actually doing so however are two entirely seperate things. The prosecution was quick to point out that he showed no emotion or remorse in the courts which apparently was reason enough to convict.
BULLSHIT.
Its a total Catch 22. If Scott had showed remorse the prosecution would have claimed it all to be a "show" an "act" for the jurors. If he didn't show remorse the prosecution would have claimed it was because he didn't give a shit. So whats the guy to do? If you're being tried for murder I highly doubt you'll be sitting in the accused seat with a grin on your face and a cheery disposition. A conviction based on emotional character and personality should be enough to make anyone wary of the system.
THE JURY
Ah, the jury. Long live the Canadian system where we only use juries in 5% of our civil trials and 10% of our criminal trials. Jurors tend to carry their own personal biases with them over into trials. Research has shown that when jurors are told to dismiss a comment made by the defence or prosecution the chance of a guitly verdict increases. Juries are a dangerous thing and it's amazing how often the American justice system uses them.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/13/jury.reax/index.html
This was taken from the CNN site in regards to why the jurors gave a guilty verdict. Pay close attention to these choice bits..
Many legal analysts had predicted the jury would recommend life in prison without the possibility of parole because the prosecution's case was based largely on circumstantial evidence
The words, NO SHIT come readily to mind. How is it possible that everyone else could recognize that all the evidence against Scott was
circumstantial. Seems to me that if you have "circumstantial" evidence you also have reasonable doubt which is what one tries to avoid in a criminal trial.
"It just seemed to be the appropriate justice for the crime, given the nature and how personal it really was against his wife and child," said Cardosi, who works as a firefighter and paramedic in Half Moon Bay.
Personal? Well...yah, I mean - it was his wife and unborn kid. Of course it was personal. So is that to say that every man who has lost his wife or kid was responsible for their deaths? I think people would tend to disagree with this logic. As for the attack itself, Laci was found nearly decapitated. Why would Scott, an individual with no prior criminal record and no obvious psychological pathologies attempt to saw off his own wifes head and remove the fetus?
Laci was de humanized. That sort of post mortem action is typically seen in cases of serial murder or sadistic sexual homicide where the killer gets off in a perverse manner to the mutilation of his victim. If Scott had just wanted to kill her and be rid of the body, he could have done so just by throwing her into the bay. Why would Scott take the time to play around with the body if he needed to dispose of it so fast to avoid being caught? The fact that she was
nearly decapitated and the fetus taken out proves to me that the reasons for the mutilation were not for that of "hiding" the body. If that was the case she probably would have been dismembered entirely and buried, not thrown nearly headless into the San Fran Bay.
The rest you can read on your own, I already pointed out the Catch 22 in relation to Petersons emotional state during the trial.
DEATH PENALTY ?
As a proponent of the death penalty, if the prosecution had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt I would have been the first person to recommend the death penalty. However, since they failed to do so the agreement to implement the death penalty is not only scary but makes me lose faith in the system. (Mind you, I didn't have much to begin with so that's not saying too much)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/14/peterson.appeals/index.html
Im not going to spoon feed you the reasons for why Peterson shouldn't be sentenced to death, you can read the above article and come up with your own reasons.
Do I think he did it? I have my doubts. But the purpose of this blog was to raise the question of how reliable our justice system is if we can convict and setence to death strictly on circumstancial evidence. It's wasn't written to argue my opinion of his guilt or innocence.
In conclusion, this case should be a warning to all. When the fate of your life lies in the hands of a select biased few in a shaky justice system, everythings fair game. Reasonable doubt is left at the door as we continue our witch hunt for the "bad guy" and anyone can be burned at the stake.
