Thoughts on the People's Street Reactions - Peterson Verdict

Normally, I would avoid posting any thread of this nature, because of the lurid sensationalism involved, the endless media circus surrounding it, and what have you.

But something got to me today that reaffirmed some of my worst hunches about the latter-day triumph of humanity's reptilian core.

It's easy to say, as with most capital murder cases, that the perpetrator is vile scum, deserves his fate, and strictly undeserving of our sympathy or any modicum of good will.

I won't argue that. He IS scum. He DOES deserve scorn and unyielding contempt and bottomless condemnation. He represents the worst the species has to offer. What's to defend when it comes to the monstrous reptile at HIS core?

But.

The cheering.

The elation.

Does dancing in the streets for the impending death of a monster reaffirm our humanity and basic goodness, as these happy minions would like to believe?

Or does cheering the death sentence bring us one step closer to his deep, dark level of reveling in the debasement of another's life, even the life of a sickly scumbag?

Do we deny our own humanity as an emotional trade-off for welcoming the fate he gets for denying another human being hers? Or do we celebrate an illusion of superiority?

I do not claim to fall on one side or the other so easily.

If I were Laci's brother or father or uncle... I can't say I wouldn't want Scott Peterson to die at my own hand. I can't deny I may very well dance on his grave.

I can't deny a sliver of empathy for the cheering throngs.

But I also can't deny something stuck in my craw with those happy, laughing, exultant people, and made me deeply ill-at-ease in my soul.

I am not sure we can make that trade-off with our humanity fully successful, to satisfy a lust for vengeance that will exact a greater price than we can pay. The trade-off shortchanges us every time.

I am not sure.

But it sure as hell made me wonder about the state of humanity and the spiritual health of America's rank-and-file 'upstanding' citizens.

And it made me wonder just how far removed from a beast like Scott Peterson they, and we, truly are.

I am not sure.

because they feel justice will be served and they are really cheering the fact that the system worked......or maybe they are just imbeciles who watch too much tv and love violence. Its probably a mix of both for many people.

but she is more than willing to inflict that pain on Scott's mom.

Lock him up, let him rot, whatever keeps him from harming another soul. No death sentence will bring her back. But he does not deserve freedom either, as everyone can agree.

But cheering? Surely the right way to seek justice for Laci can allow us to be more humane and elevated than he ever was.

but in a way, Scott's mom has already lost her child. I mean, imagine knowing your son was that monster, capable of such atrocity.

not at all

I've lost a child.

I feel for both sets of parents. I really do.

Killing Scott won't bring back Laci. It won't teach other people not to commit murder.

Scott Peterson isn't a threat to go on murderous rampages; he can be locked up.

Killing him does nothing but satisfy blood lust and a need for revenge. It's sick.

it is indeed revenge more than justice.

I'm so sorry to know you've lost a child laz - I don't have kids but just recently I heard the terror, the horror in the voice of my mum as she screamed about the death of my brother. She kept screaming my baby, my firstborn - it surely was hard to listen to; I cannot imagine experiencing it.

I didn't see any television coverage, so I can only speculate.

I don't think humans are much more 'advanced' than we were a couple hundred years ago; history claims that the guillotine was very popular in France, crowds flocking to see the executions, and cheering etc.

I would also ask how much the cameras played a role in whatever celebrations occurred WRT the Peterson sentence. People generally play to the camera with whatever emotion they think will get the best play on tv.

I think in the long run, a life sentence without possibility of parole would be a more satisfying verdict for his victim's family. As it is, they will endure years of hope that he will die, post-poned by appeals, and stays, so their grief will be reawakened again and again before he finally dies.

Murder is vile. Murdering someone who loves and trusts you is especially vile. Murdering someone who loves and trusts you and is physically unable to defend against an attack is unspeakably vile. I agree with the sentence.

As for the rejoicing and other emotional displays, I think it has to do with the Oprahization of America, plus our country's undeniable tendancy for vulgar display. People who didn't know the Rochas or the dead woman are whipping themselves into a frenzy, in part, because they are encouraged to ("how do you feeeeeeeeeeel?") and in part because they have no idea how they should behave, so they go with what they've seen on TV. The dead woman's mother, until she was told not, made good use of the media with her impassioned performances and even helped get some very bad law passed in her dead daughter's name.

There's something about these dreary, commonplace crimes (women are more likely to be murdered by husbands/boyfriends and are more likely to be murdered when pregnant, according to national crime statistics) that no one wants to believe. A fairly attractive couple with nothing too freaky in their background, one of them pregnant (and more and more pregnant: when she went missing, it was reported she was 7.5 months pregnant, than 8 months, then near her due date, as though somehow a more viable fetus made her a more valuable container) and a mystery during the big silly season of Consumermas.

I haven't followed the case at all, but I know what you mean, what a strange world we live in when people's energies are focused in such an emotional outburst. It reminds me of when people were cheering when OJ was speeding down the freeway. No question the guy is a scumbag, but Christ, why don't prople react the same way to pressing social & world issues?

Maybe it's easier to transfer our hostilities and helpless rage to the Frankensteins in our communities.

Weird.

didn't he get convicted on circumstantial evidence?

If so, then the death penalty should not have been the sentence.

Circumstantial evidences, at least to me, evokes a Shadow of a doubt. We all know how circumstance can get away from us, that w can get blamed for something because of a misunderstanding.

Not to say that he isn't guilty, but to take a life based on a collection of events strung together by another human is just to Kafkaesque for me......

screaming fantatical pro-lifers. Taking a life is taking a life and unfortunatly, many on the pro-life side do not understand this. My Mother is a fantical anti-choice freeper. Last night we were talking about this and I had to ask her, for the hunderth time, if she understood the discrepancy in her position. She screamed that one had a choice to die and the other didn't. No use in trying anymore. In another thread today, I discussed a priest who ran a retreat I went to last night. He was very disturbed by the scenes on TV last night and used the story of the prodigal son as a reason for not using the death penalty.

I paid almost no interest in this case, all the way through.

So I'm kinda lost on this one. I was under the impression there is no hard evidence. None. How can you sentence someone to death in those circumstances?

.

If you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground, and you wake up and there is snow on the ground all around your neighborhood, then you you can conclude, with circumstantial evidence ONLY, that it snowed during the night even though you did not SEE it snow.

There is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. Often eye-witnesses can be dead-ass wrong; therefore, circumstantial evidence can be even more reliable than even eyewitnesses.

The death penalty. This was the final straw. I was always ambivalent about it, I could see pros and cons. Then, I saw the Life and Times of David Gale (I think that was what the move was called) and I started really doubting the whole concept.

Then, there was a man put to death here in MD within the last year. He had raped and murdered 3 women. There was no dispute that he had actually committed the crimes. But, the way the victims' families were celebrating in the street as he was being executed literally made me ill. They were singing songs, partying, celebrating like it was New Years or something instead of another person being killed. It was disgusting.

I just don't understand the necessity of the death penalty since then. It won't bring the victims back. It solves nothing. And, too often, an innocent person is executed. I believe Scott Peterson killed his wife, I believe he is scum. But, I also believe that there was too much circumstantial evidence with this case. And, I believe executing him is wrong.

Debbi

You hit the nail on the head. That's IMHO the BEST way one can see how evil the death penalty really is.

...the reason I posted this is actually because I feel the way you do about this. State sanctioned murder either via execution or by invasion is wrong and cheering for someone's death, whether or not you believe that they deserve it, is not only wrong, but inhumane. Like the barking dogs at the house behind me, where the larger picks on the smaller until it cries and then the larger wags its tail in glee. Are we no better?

some great victory.

3 deaths will result from Scott Peterson's crime - I don't see any winners.

as the response to the "war porn" that was so prevalent in the spring of 2003. I purposely didn't watch any of it (easy 'cause I have no TV), but when I saw F-9/11 and Control Room I was shocked at how aroused the television people seemed during the "shock and awe" campaign.

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

Scott and Laci were both attractive people (and Amber was attractive, too) which makes the public seem to care more. If people can picture themselves in bed with the people, then naturally, the public will pay more attention.

Any hint of sex (ugly people need not apply), and the media will blow a story out of proportion.