Did the Jury make the right decision?
I believe they did. As I opined in another thread several months ago, one fact was overwhelming (and more than enough for me): The location of the discovered bodies of Laci and Conor.
Keeping in mind that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable
doubt" (as opposed to "beyond any and all
possible doubt"), I cannot get past the coincidences of events:
Scott goes fishing on X-mas Eve. Laci (and Conor) goes missing on X-mas Eve. Scott travels 90 miles from his home in Modesto to go fishing in a very specific part of the very, very
large San Francisco bay. The bodies of Laci and Conor are subsequently discovered very near the exact
locations where Scott said he had gone fishing.
If Scott was not the killer (or at least a part of it), one would have to believe in some kind of "Hollywood" twist of a scenario where the real
killer(s) knew Scott's exact destination (alibi) ahead of time or had someone folowing Scott while Laci (and Conor) were being kidnapped and/or killed, and then planted them to frame Scott. Either that or the real
killers held on to them (alive or dead) until Scott's general destination (alibi) of the Berkely Marina was publicly revealed after
the announcement of her disappearance, and the "frame-up" began then. Of course the specific places Scott said he fished after he left the Berkely Marina were not immediately made public, so it becomes even more far-fetched.
Is it possible? O.K. sure! It is possible.
Maybe it was all a part of GW's right-wing plot to erode Roe V. Wade by enacting the new law that considers an unborn child to be a second victim in the murder of a pregnant woman?
Perhaps Moore will float it in his upcoming new "documentary"?
This case also addressed the issue of the murder of an unborn child, should someone be accused of killing unborn children if they murder a pregnant woman?
Over time, I lean more and more towards the conclusion that an unborn child (or fetus, zygote, etc...) is a human being with a right to life (and I approach this subject as an agnostic/atheist leaning libertarian with no "religious" thoughts on the matter), and I do believe you have two
"victims" in this case.
Having said that, I suppose that under the current structure (choice) it would depend on whether the pregnant woman's latest wish (prior to the murder) was to either 1) have her human baby, or 2) abort the non-human fetus/embryo/zygote.
In the first case, there is an additional victim. In the second case, there is only the
the woman and now dead tissue.
Should Scott Peterson receive the Death Penalty?
I support the death penalty in theory, but not as currently applied. The mere possibilty
(however remote) of an innocent person being wronfully executed is absolutely abhorent to me.
While I believe that "beyond a reasonable doubt
" is a fair standard for incarceration (any innocent persons convicted may loose some liberty but they hold on to life and a chance of exoneration), I also believe that imposition of the death penalty for crimes that (certainly) deserve it should require a standard of "beyond any and all doubt
". I know that's a tough standard to meet, but imagine yourself or a loved-one, strapped down with the lethal injection rushing towards innocent veins. What does everyone say later when the truth comes out?....Oooops, sorry 'bout that...