Human Monsters and the Death Penalty

There have been three big cases on the news this week.

Scott Peterson recieved the death penalty for the murder of Lacey Peterson and her unborn son, who was also his unborn son.

Robert Blake was found not guilty of the murder of his wife.

And just last night another monster in human clothing confessed to stealing Jessica Lunsford out of her bed while her parents slept and raping and killing the 9 year old child.

I am going to post some musings on each of these cases...and try to explain my feelings concerning *justice and the death penalty and what is expected of a juror* in the American Legal System.

IN THEORY...I think the DP is warranted for some crimes...some are so heinous that just as a mad dog or rabid animal has to be put down for the safety of society, there are some animals in human form that fall into that same area.

BUT I am against the DP IN PRACTICE because there is too great a risk of mistakes...

(that in our drive for vegence, in our need to make someone pay..

anyone pay...

in our belief that we can tell (gut instinct) if someone is guilty...

that nobody would be arrested if the police didn't have evidence...

that nobody would be found guilty of a DP crime if they really weren't)...

that innocent people who are only guilty of being different or odd...

or slow...

or black...

or hispanic...

or in the wrong place at the wrong time...

or looking like the person who did it....

or acting *wrong* according to societies norms...

will end up (as has happened too many times)being put to death for crimes they didn't commit.

So for me at least it is better that those rabid monsters masquerading as humans do not recieve the DP, then take the risk of a single innocent paying w/their life for a crime that they did not commit.

If we are going to err, then unless we want to be guilty of also simply masquerading as human, then we must always err on the side of compassion. Even if that means showing compassion to monsters who had no compassion for their victims.


Now turning to the issue of Scott Peterson.

I personally think he is guilty..but that does not matter.

The prosecution did not prove his guilt and that is what they are required to do, under law.

Instead the jury decided he was guilty and that he didn't prove his innocence..

When juries start deciding that it is not up to the prosecution to prove guilt, but instead it is up to the defendant to prove innocent it becomes dangerous for everyone in the US, because everyday in this county someone is arrested who could be innocent.

A jury is not supposed to decide if the person is Innocent or Guilty...they are supposed to detirmine if the prosecution did or did not PROVE guilt.

The Peterson jurors said: he didn't *act right*. That should not matter. Different people react differently to grief and stress.

Scott Petersons actions had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the crime. A juror is not supposed to like or dislike the defendant..they are supposed to listen to the evidence and decide if the prosecution proved their case.

The Robert Blake jury got the distinction.

That it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt and if they don't

then you have to find not guilty even if you *think/believe* the person committed the crime...

They understood, as too many people in the US do not, that not guilty does not mean you believe the accused is innocent.

Going back to Scott Peterson and his death sentence. It is a bad, bad, bad precident to set, to sentence a person to death in a case in which there was no physical evidence
and only circumstancial evidence
and the ability of the prosecutor to manipulate the jury better then the defense lawyer.

That is right Scott Peterson was found guilty cause the prosecutor was better at manipulating the jury then the defense lawyer. He was able to get the jury to vote based on their emotions, instead of based on the (lack of) real evidence presented.

Robert Blake, with the same amount of evidence against him, was found not guilty, because the defense lawyer was able to keep the prosectutor from manipulating the jury into voting with their emotions instead of their brains. Finally a jury understood what they are supposed to do... not decide guilt or innocence, but decide whether the prosecution PROVED guilt.

I saw an interview Friday morning on the Today showabout Robert Blakes not guilty finding.

A couple of the jury members said they didnot necessarily think he was innocent..

But they had to vote not guilty because there were other possible scenarios for her death and the prosecution did not prove that only Blake could have been responsible..

Blakey's daughter said the same..that while she believes Blake killed her mother, the evidence was too circumstancial against him and the case was not proven.

Too bad the Peterson jurors did not get the distinction between not guilty and thinking the person was innocent.

Maybe the court system needs to change how they describe the verdict instead of saying

"We the jury find the defendant *guilty/not guilty*"

they should have to say

"We the jury find that the prosecution *did/failed to* prove guilt".....

Hopefully something good will come out of Petersons DP sentence...

Maybe the courts will rule that the DP can not be used in cases that are decided completely on circumstancial evidence ONLY.

That in order to sentence someone to die for a crime that there MUST be physical evidence that they committed the crime.