If you haven't been living under a rock, you've probably heard of the Scot Petterson trial. Scott is accused of murdering his pregnant wife and the case is mostly circumstantial. Many think that he will be convicted - but should he be?

Public Defender Dude writes:

In cases like this (the David Westerfield case in San Diego a couple of years ago included), you can have very weak facts, but if they have been convicted in the press already, weak facts don't matter. Juries will find someone guilty on a sniff of guilt, even without compelling reasons. So many of these cases that have been reversed for late findings of DNA exonerating the defendant have been cases where the facts were really weak, but the case was high profile (at least in the area where the trial took place) and a rabid press convicted the defendant long before trial. The result, juries figure where there's smoke there's fire, and there would never be a case pending unless the police and press were really sure. Also, jurors have heard so much one-sided evidence in cases like that that they have formed a predisposition against the defendant, no matter what comes out at trial (and this is subliminal, so they may not even recognize it in order that it can be rooted out during voir dire).

Talk Left comments:

[I]f he turns out to be right, it may be that Scott Peterson becomes the latest victim of the media. The media focuses on guilt because guilt sells. What a sad statement of affairs for a country whose criminal justice system is grounded in the presumption of innocence. If Public Defender Dude is right, it's Michael Skakel Redux. Once again we have the victim's family grieving on the news night after night. A prevalence of prosecution-oriented pundits proclaiming the defendant's guilt. A camera fest outside the courtroom. Witnesses with spinmeisters masquerading as legal counsel, continually grabbing the media spotlight. Well-known former cops and journalists siding with the victim's family. People Magazine and tabloids trumpeting a pretty picture of the victim week after week. And for the final touch there is always a Dorothy Moxley and Sharon Rocha, wholly good and tragic figures, just separated at birth.

Can't you just see the Prosecution's closing now? A video presentation with a blowup of the pregnant Laci, overlayed with audio consisting of Scott's voice telling love lies to Amber. Created by the same company that created the closing presentation in the Skakel trial that featured the blowup of a smiling and happy Martha Moxley, accompanied by the voice of Michael Skakel from a past interview making no admissions as to the crime. Hey, it worked in Skakel. While I hope this jury has more sense, Public Defender Dude may have hit the nail on the head.

Scott Peterson might be guilty - the evidence against him certainly is bad. At the same time, it’s all circumstantial evidence that has been played up in the media. He’s undoubtedly a liar and a cheat, but he shouldn’t be convicted of murder because of that.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics
• Ethics and Culture
• Privacy & Autonomy