I don’t understand the excitement over the Scott Peterson case. It’s odd that people have chosen this one murder victim as particularly tragic and this one murderer as particularly reprehensible. It must be that the two of them are attractive enough for TV. Apparently, people are driving from all over to pay their respects to Laci Peterson, to whom they “feel a connection.” Bokonon would call the entire affair a granfalloon and have done. People are still dying in Sudan.
5:06 pm on Sunday, November 14th, 2004
comments
yeah, i agree.
Actually, the Scott Peterson case could prove to be very significant if used in a Supreme Court re-evaluation of Roe v. Wade. Because Peterson was doubly convicted, once for the murder of Laci Peterson and once for the murder of their unborn child, the case could be used to prove that a fetus is in fact a living human being with personal rights under the law. However, People magazine and Us Weekly’s coverage of the case (featuring the murder victim on the front cover) probably does not stem from this particular significance.
that is interesting. that hadn’t happened before? laci can’t be the first murdered pregnant woman. also, i think Roe v. Wade is in a lot more danger from the re-election of Bush than from a Peterson precedent.
hey, you anonymous people with good points should leave your names and emails.
(did you know the wade (or the roe? not sure) from roe v wade is now intensely anti-abortion?)
Hah, I did know that actually. Roe is the woman; she is actually from Texas, I believe. You’re right; I think the reason that the Peterson case is so upsetting is because Bush has been re-elected, and with the potential Supreme Court nominees, it is far more likely that Roe v. Wade will come into question.
i think you give the american public too much credit with your talk of a precedent and roe v. wade. i think most people just think he/she is hot and enjoy feeling fuzzy about it.
i’m writing a strident editorial for my newspaper on this subject entitled “Sudan, not Scott.”
This case was a prime example of postmodernity and how it encompasses our justice system. Some argue that the decision could be heavily contributed to the media coverage of Scott Peterson shortly after the news of his wife’s death. The jurors had seen Scott Peterson on T.V. crying and attending memorials. When they received evidence in court they realised that everything on T.V. was just an act and that probably played a major part in their decision.I guess this doesn’t really answer the question, but it is a significant shift in how trials take place.