home

fetish

images

text

gin

applesanity.com > fetish > peterson

Scott Peterson was sentenced with the death penalty after a very emotional, circumstantial, and vindictive trial.

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned... So that they may be urged the more to praise God... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens... to the damned.

- St. Thomas Aquinas, answering the question,

“Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned,”
Summa Theologica

The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance.

- Psalm 58:10

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me.

-Isaiah 66:24

AT VINDICTA BONVM VITA IVCVNDIVS IPSA NEMPE HOC INDOCTI...

- JVVENALIS, SATVRAE

Rest Peacefully,

Death Penalty What?

I used to be for the death penalty; I could look at it in so many ways. It could be a deterrent - you’d be less tempted to commit some kind of capital crime if you knew you were going to die for it. Or, it could be ultimate justice in the tradition of Hammurabi’s “eye for an eye” doctrine. Or, from the most pragmatic of standpoints, I won’t have to watch the government spend my tax dollars on keeping some inmate relatively comfortable for the rest of his life. It costs a lot to run and operate a penitentiary.

As for the people who argued against, saying things like, “who are we to play God?” or “taking another life doesn't solve anything,” - said criminal's fate is no longer in our hands; said criminal has already decided fate. To violate the laws of society in such an egregious manner equals a forfeit of being a part of society. Taking another life does solve many things: closure for relatives and friends of the victim(s).

Ode to a Media Whore: ME

A while back, the news was flooded with soundbites and tidbits of the “high profile” Scott Peterson murder trial. Okay, it's cheesy. And yes, I admit it - I paid attention to the trial. Does that make me a whore for mainstream media? Well, fuck you. First, let us go through the major events that led to the trial.

So Laci Peterson of Modesto County, California was supposedly walking her dog on Christmas Eve 2002 when she just poof! disappears. (Scott says he was fishing in San Francisco Bay on the day of, and his alibi was confirmed.) Search parties and volunteer groups abound; “have you seen this woman?” She's pregnant, you know... about to deliver... his name is Conner. Scott makes some TV appearances, face full of remorse for the cameras.

Exactly one month later, massage therapist Amber Fry of Fresno County (and I know I'm not the only one who thought that chick was a foxy vixen) makes a public appearance, saying she was having an affair with Scott Peterson since November 20, which continued even after Laci disappeared. Phone conversations were taped, and while friends and relatives and strangers are searching for Laci or putting up flyers, Scott is still having romantic phone sex with Amber.

On April 13th, Conner's body washes ashore in San Francisco Bay, and on the next day, Laci's decapitated body shows up. Two plus two equals five, and Scott is arrested and charged four days later. Judge Al Girolami permits a change of venue amid “publicity” and the trial goes to Redwood City in San Mateo County, California.

The trial begins on the first of June. And so began another great American soap opera in the styles and traditions of O.J., Amy Fisher, that woman who drowned her two boys to be with her boyfriend... what was her name? If the media forgot, I guess I have as well.

The Case: Considerations

The motive: Scott Peterson was caught in a love triangle; needed a way out, a way to start over with that sexy lady Amber Fry. She's so sexy.

The evidence: Scott Peterson displays no emotion and appears ever callous and... fishing on Christmas Eve... or dumping a body? Jesus Christ. Sounds fishy to me, many puns intended. Her body washed up near where his boat is docked. The way he sounds on the taped conversations with Amber -don't sound like a grieving husband to me. If it was a robbery, there is no need to kill a pregnant woman - she can't get very far and no neighbors heard or saw anything. It couldn't have been rape, because well, you have to have some pretty sick fetishes to rape a pregnant woman. Process of elimination: Scott.

The lack of: No definitive evidence to tie Scott Peterson with Laci’s murder. Shit, the prosecution doesn’t even know how she died, considering how badly decomposed she was. This was a trial based wholly on circumstantial evidence. There wasn’t even so much as a bloody glove.

There are many things to consider. Scott probably didn’t show emotion about his wife’s disappearance and murder because well, he was having an affair. He must have been thinking, “shit, what a lucky break.” In regards to his demeanor with Amber Fry as heard in the taped phone conversations, it might have just been him still too pussy to admit to her that he was married. He was making some pretty outlandish lies, like traveling in Europe and stuff. Sounds like the fucker was simply strung out.

During the trial, he didn’t show emotion, but maybe because he realized early on that there was no way out and he accepted his fate. As for the body washing up in the bay, well shit, if I killed Laci, I’d be watching the news, hear about Scott’s fishing alibi, and say to myself, “gee, maybe I should dump the body in that bay, so everyone will be quick to point fingers at Scott and not me.”

A basic premise of American justice is that defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering all the evidence thus far and all the evidence we know now, there is still a reasonable doubt. Just ignore for one second, or maybe three, that Scott was a smelly asshole. If we never knew about the affair, if he wept every day during trial, if Laci wasn’t pregnant, if Mark Geragos wasn’t a sleazy overpriced lawyer (he did represent Michael Jackson), then we have nothing. Being a horrible person does not prove that you are a murderer, Meursault.

Yes, it unfolds a bit like that story, The Stranger, by Albert Camus. So much emotion involved. Actually, Meursault was a likable guy.

The Verdict and Fallout

And when the whole country learned that Scott Peterson was found guilty on the 12th of November, 20004, and again when the jury recommended on December 13th that the appropriate punishment was death, we also realized -

What a sick, vindictive lot we all are.

“There was no reason to doubt it was Scott who did what he did,” says Ron Grantski, the father of Laci. “He got what he deserved.”

We gathered outside the courtroom plaza, (because there are only 27 public seats in the courtroom, chosen by lottery), we leaned on walls beside our water cooler icebreakers, we cheered and cried tears of joy and relief. What the fuck is there to cheer about? However, our emotions matter little compared to those directly involved with the trial: the witnesses, the lawyers, the judge, the mothers, sisters, brothers, mamas’ mamas, fathers, the cheesecake, and the jurors.

Here is a an excerpt of a transcript of the jury instructions, given on 3 November, 2004:

You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you regardless of whether you agree with it. If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments, or at any other time during the trial, conficts with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions.

You must not be influence by pity for, or prejudice against, the defendant. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt and you must not infer or assume to from any or all of them that a defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.

You must not be influence by sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict.

The instructions seem pretty clear to me. Let us see some of the statements that the jurors made at a press conference that occured soon after the trial:

“I still would have liked to see, I don't know if remorse is the right word,” says jury foreman Steve Cardosi, a firefighter of some sort.

“He lost his wife and his child... it didn't seem to faze him. While that was going on... he is romancing a girlfriend.”

“For me, a big part of it was at the end, the verdict -- no emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words,” says Richelle Nice, an unemployed mother of four. “I heard enough from him.”

Oh yeah, a juror's legal obligation to abide by and obey jury instructions - well fuck that.

What a reaction. So much emotion. It is fucking sickening. I’m sure most have seen footage of the cheering masses outside the courthouse. Or Laci’s mother weeping tears of unfathomable woe. Or vengeance. People are setting up little memorials here and there, with posters saying things like, “Rest peacefully, Laci and Conner: JUSTICE IS SERVED.”

There are still many other examples of reactions, showing how sickening this soap opera is. Everyone says the same thing, Laci was loved by all, Conner was almost due to be born, Laci was so sweet, look at the anguish on the faces of Laci’s relatives, Scott was a horrible person, how could he have done this to his college sweetheart, it’s nice to see that for once, high-powered lawyers can’t always beat the system, suck a fuck.

The Dirty, Pretty, Logical Conclusions

Has anyone noticed that in convicting Scott of murder for killing his unborn baby, this case has set a precedent in regards to late-term abortions?

This whole trial leads us to thinking about all those death penalties handed out to famous defendants: John Allen Muhammad the sniper, Timothy McVeigh the home-grown terrorist, Perry Edward Smith the shorty. And how we all cheered and praised our deities of choice, threw barbecues and renewed our faith in the justice system.

“He got what he deserved.”

Vindictiveness: that is why I am now against the death penalty. What a sad, sad way to come to terms with the murderer of said loved one. If Scott needs to die so that Sharon Rocha, Laci’s mother, can sleep at night, then Sharon is a bitch. What I am trying to say goes beyond the “an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” or the “another death isn’t going to bring back your loved one” or the “causing more suffering isn’t going to alleviate the suffering we’re already suffering” rationality.

I couldn't care less about all the pragmatic arguments against the dealth penalty , like whether it's racist or faulty or whatever. Those arguments are just extensions of arguments against the justice system in general. What I am arguing about is the concept of needing a death penalty in the first place. If I can show you that wanting a dealth penalty to exist is wrong, then all pragmatic arguments become completely irrelevant.

Simplifying everything, Sharon is saying to us, “In order for me to move on past the brutal murder of my daughter and grandson, I need to see their murderer put to death.” Has it clicked yet? Yes? No?

It’s this irrational need for revenge. How consumed we all are of it. The point I was trying to make about how Scott’s case was dubious and circumstantial was to show that so many people had so much (rightful) hatred for him. We hate him, so now we want him to die in order to fulfill our hatred.

If Scott Peterson really is guilty, then I, personally, won’t hold any value to his life, or believe in any merits worth sparing his life. But I wouldn’t necessarily want him to die. A lot of people, though, want him to die. We could separate our emotions from our logic, or we don’t have to. Emotion says, we hate him - he should die. Logic says, he committed murder - he should get what’s coming. Either way, both conclusions revolve around an animal mentality of vindictiveness.

Killing is fine when it is necessary, like for self-defense, or if you're a soldier on the battlefield. But those reasons are not about vengeance.

Begs the question: what’s wrong with revenge? Well, one should separate notions of revenge versus justice. If someone steals your car, well shit, you have every right to get your car back or get reimbursed, and get an assurance the fucker won’t be stealing your car or any other cars for a long time to come. But if someone kills your pregnant daughter, then you have every right to... get your daughter back? ... or get reimbursed? No, we want that fucker to die. What a beautiful rationalization.

We’re not pro-death penalty because we believe in justice - we’re pro-death penalty because we need to quench our thirst for watching the pain of others. I’m sure Nietzsche wasn’t the first to point it out, but it all boils down to a sick need to see your perpetrator suffer for your own satisfaction. We will all have much joy and celebration when Scott dies. If he was sent to prison, where he will become someone’s bitch, get raped a lot... if one day we hear in the news that either he hung himself or that some inmate cut out his throat with a shiv, I would probably be the last to weep for him (assuming he really is guilty). His life has no value - many of us agree, but that’s not the point. The point is, we are making cheers and having orgasms to the suffering of another. And we need it. It’s part of the healing process.

Final Thoughts

Justice: she may be blind, but she still has a nice rack.

Written by Dinah Cheshire
Exclusive property of www.applesanity.com