Beelzebub For The Defense
By A.M. Siriano (12/15/04)
I don’t often write editorials to counter other editorials by fellow conservatives, but Jen Shroder’s “In Lone Defense of Scott Peterson” was mostly a load of nonsense and deserved rebuttal. I featured a link to her article on my own website simply to point out that there are dissenting opinions out there, including ones that are—with all due respect—a little crazy.
Ms. Shroder, founder of BlessedCause.org, and a surprisingly effective evangelical activist in California, asks a very reasonable question in the first paragraph: “Where’s the evidence?” After that she fails to explain why the answer to that question is important, and also introduces a common theory on the demise of Laci Peterson, one in which there is also little or no evidence, but is far more heinous than mere strangulation by an adulterous husband. Laci, according to Ms. Shroder, was likely killed ritualistically by Satanists who were thirsty for the blood of innocents and eager for fresh baby meat.
Now, I realize that all too often horrible things happen to people, including cult-influenced murders. But I’m a bit of a skeptic when the populace gets seized by hysterias, which seem to feed upon themselves with each new revelation. I recall two disturbances of this nature that had the media in a hungry frenzy: one being the numerous cases in the 90’s of adults who, with the help of greedy therapists, accused their parents of molesting them; the second being the many reported Satanic killings in the late 80’s—championed by Geraldo Rivera, as noted by Shroder. But those reports were plagued by the same question that Shroder submits: “Where’s the evidence?” In the case of the murders, the baby being sacrificed on that hellish alter was always born in secret to a sequestered mother. The horrifying spectacles of torture and bloodletting were always witnessed only by the last concubine standing. As the hysteria grew, and the crazies came out for their 15-minutes on Geraldo, so did the stories—wild, ghastly, stomach-turning.
My guess is that Scott Peterson did it, and I say that only because, at some point, he didn’t jump up and shout, “Hey, people, I’m not listening to Mark Geragos or any other lawyer anymore. I’m a maggot, folks, I admit it, but I’m no murderer!” He didn’t even come close to that, according to the jury, so he must be guilty, right?
As one who supports capital punishment, I’ll be the first to say, it seems a very bad precedent to put someone to death because he continued to romance another after his wife went missing and, later, faced with a murder rap, showed no emotion. These indicators could be pointing us to a real sociopath, one who can kill without feeling or remorse. Or it could mean he’s a heartless letch who simply never really cared about Laci, certainly didn’t want to be tied down by Connor, and was more interested in his next sexual conquest; and then, outed for the first time in his life and to the whole world, and faced with a life behind bars or beneath the ground, he just went numb. I know guys of the latter sort, sad to say, and were you to put them in front of cameras and in lockup day in and day out, they would go silent and cold, and would look pretty guilty.
The state of forensic science continues to offer new ways of proving guilt, and we should run with it. Barring moral considerations, there is no need to wonder anymore if the person we are putting to death deserves it. Peterson will likely escape death, at least for some time, unless he gets into a tangle in the pen. His whole life will be “in the system,” waiting in line behind hundreds on death row. He will grow old, give interviews, further his education. His mother will visit him until her poor health sweeps her off the planet. Laci’s family will go on missing Laci, and will have no real justice. Taxpayers will shell out a few more dollars to support the whole affair.
I don’t believe juries should be deciding the punishment of someone like Peterson. I don’t believe judges should either. They are there to decide guilt or innocence, and then firm laws should determine his fate. If his murderous ways are irrefutably proven—forensically not psychiatrically—then he dies. If not, but evidence strongly suggests he did the crime, then a life of physical labor that benefits the family of the victim is in order.
I can’t help but believe that the system’s built-in encumbrances to justice influences a jury’s final recommendation. I wonder: If “guilty” meant three days of reflection, a last meal and then the gallows, would the jury have been so sure of Peterson’s just desserts based on “cold eyes” and “very few tears”? What if jury duty also required execution duty?
So, you see, I have my doubts, and I’m more than willing to entertain dissenting opinions. But I’m not jumping to conclusions, either. We may never know the truth about the Peterson murders, but there is no need to conjure up demonic scenarios to satisfy our demand for justice. There is a stronger need to simply demand justice and leave those who “get away with it” to a higher authority.
(Printer friendly version) Email: A.M. Siriano
