Is Anyone Else Surprised? 

I really haven't followed the Lacy Peterson murder trial. The only bits I've caught have been major news headlines that have popped up here or there. However, now that the case is decided, and the jury has recommended punishment (and it is just a recommendation), I think I'll share some thoughts on the whole thing.

First of all, just like the O.J. trial, I think that this case was over sensationalized by the media. The crime committed was heinous... but why this woman? Why this crime? To concentrate on every detail and minutia in this case is an insult to every family that has dealt with similar tragedy without the vilification of the perpetrator that has occurred here. Anyone who doesn't think that this case was picked up as convenient filler for when a car bomb didn't explode in Iraq is kidding themselves. I think that the media should be ashamed of themselves.

Secondly, I thought some of the headlines yesterday before the jury announced that they came to a decision were kind of scary. Many pundits were saying that because the jury was taking so long, it meant they would decide for life in prison instead of death. Did it not occur to anyone that maybe 12 people of conscious had decided to take their time, and make a measured decision when they were considering extinguishing a man's life from the face of the Earth? Were those commentators actually saying that a quick decision meant death, and that this was alright, and expected? If you're deciding whether to end a man's life, you better take your time. That is a decision that should not be made in haste, because you have weekend plans.

Do I think that the death penalty was the correct decision here? It's hard for me to say for a couple reasons. First of all, I haven't been following the case as I said, so I don't know all the facts. From all I've heard, and what I have read, this was a cold calculated act performed in a most repugnant and hideous way. If this crime did not deserve the death penalty, I don't know what does.

My other issue comes from my own personal feelings of the death penalty. I go back and forth on this. I don't have an issue with the punishment as a concept. I think that some crimes are deserving of death. My issues comes from the finality of the decision. Once he's dead, that's it... you can't take it back later. I would definitely be in favor of laws that required some pretty damning physical evidence to be present before the death penalty would be an option. Some states have such laws on the books. My understanding with the Peterson trial however, is that it was largely circumstantial case. From the perspective, I don't think that the penalty will hold up on appeal, and maybe that's the way it should be.