<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Drooling on the Pillow

Saturday, March 19, 2005

The Big Drop 

I was on a grand jury four or five years ago that re-indicted a guy who had been sitting in a jail cell for many years for the murder of a cop. Some judge cut him loose and the Hudson County prosecutors wanted him back inside.

Okay. Much of the evidence against him was hinky as it was provided by the testimony of a number of witnesses without a merit badge between them. Not nice guys. Career dirtbags.

But. There were two or three pieces of physical evidence that, to me, at least, made it a very easy vote. I voted to indict and a majority, but not a big majority, voted with me.

He was acquitted in the trial and the media treated it as a triumph of justice. Now I didn't follow the trial closely, I don't know what the jury was presented with and I don't know that, had I been on that jury, I wouldn't have voted to acquit as well.

I just know that I saw a lot of evidence that didn't make it into the trial, but even some of the stuff I know did make it was enough for me to be as sure today as I was back then that this guy was guilty.

These thoughts were prompted by this post at The Dax Files. Dax is uncomfortable with the Scott Peterson trial. Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of circumstantial evidence and, whether or not he's guilty, Dax is not convinced that the state proved it's case.

Even though I managed to avoid almost all of the case on TV, I did read some about it and I agree. There was not one iota of physical evidence linking Peterson to the crime. No forensic evidence, no tape recordings, no co-conspirators, no nothing. He was convicted before the trial began of being a dick. Of that, he was manifestly guilty. He made many fishy moves and did his best to portray himself as man who would like to kill his wife. The circumstantial evidence tied him to events surrounding the crime, but not the crime itself.

No way should he have been convicted.

I'm a person who believes in capital punishment. I believe in the justice of it and in the way it helps to constitute a society's sense of itself.

In order to protect capital punishment, however, I think several reforms are in order. I don't think anyone should be sentenced to death purely on circumstantial evidence and absolutely never solely on the basis of eyewitness identification.

Also as there are already two phases of a capital trial (guilt and punishment), why can't there be two standards of evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt may serve to put a man in jail for life, but for killing him, perhaps something just short of metaphysical certainty is needed. Society needs to have the ability to pass the supreme judgment on its most hideous malefactors; anything that protects that right should be employed.

The Peterson trial didn't help. I'm sure he's probably guilty. But I'm with Dax. I don't think they proved it.
Posted by: Sluggo / 11:44 PM
|
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares