2008 Woodie Awards
Why We Followed Peterson
Was It Justice or Tabloid That Compelled Us to Watch?
Karl de Vries
Issue date: 11/18/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
With the Scott Peterson verdict in, an entire nation can now sit back and ask itself an important question: Was it worth the wait? Was the trial and buildup worth the nearly two years we sat, glued to CNN, watching every step of the process to the eventual conviction?
As it turns out, we didn't really learn much when it was all over; the prosecution was never able to produce a murder weapon, there was no clear motive, and the cause of death was never established.
What we do have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence that was enough to put Peterson away for the rest of his life, and another sad story about the wasteland of what was once called the American dream: a young man, a beautiful wife, a son about to enter this world. Last week the verdict came in, and the latest legal soap opera came to a close.
If you're like most Americans, you probably concluded a while ago that he committed the act; he had a flimsy alibi (fishing trip on Christmas Eve?) and he had an affair; he came across to many as a generally sleazy character. However, three jurors were removed (two of which in the last week) and the possibility of a hung jury became more and more possible.
That, coupled with the lack of hard evidence, made the following clear: if the prosecution's job is to prove the defendant "guilty beyond reasonable doubt," they failed.
But then again, were the legal intricacies the selling point in this case for Americans? Hardly. Americans milked this trial for the sheer tabloid enjoyment of it, not out of any sincere interest in seeing justice served.
This is not new, but perhaps a commentary on the values of our society; from the cases of Peterson to Gary Condit to Jon Benet Ramsey, it has been less about right versus wrong than the spectacle of attractive, package-able Americans getting themselves into trouble.
If you think about it, thousands upon thousands of women are reported missing in this country on any given day, and not a news broadcast goes by in which the latest human barbarity isn't chronicled and detailed for all to see.
As it turns out, we didn't really learn much when it was all over; the prosecution was never able to produce a murder weapon, there was no clear motive, and the cause of death was never established.
What we do have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence that was enough to put Peterson away for the rest of his life, and another sad story about the wasteland of what was once called the American dream: a young man, a beautiful wife, a son about to enter this world. Last week the verdict came in, and the latest legal soap opera came to a close.
If you're like most Americans, you probably concluded a while ago that he committed the act; he had a flimsy alibi (fishing trip on Christmas Eve?) and he had an affair; he came across to many as a generally sleazy character. However, three jurors were removed (two of which in the last week) and the possibility of a hung jury became more and more possible.
That, coupled with the lack of hard evidence, made the following clear: if the prosecution's job is to prove the defendant "guilty beyond reasonable doubt," they failed.
But then again, were the legal intricacies the selling point in this case for Americans? Hardly. Americans milked this trial for the sheer tabloid enjoyment of it, not out of any sincere interest in seeing justice served.
This is not new, but perhaps a commentary on the values of our society; from the cases of Peterson to Gary Condit to Jon Benet Ramsey, it has been less about right versus wrong than the spectacle of attractive, package-able Americans getting themselves into trouble.
If you think about it, thousands upon thousands of women are reported missing in this country on any given day, and not a news broadcast goes by in which the latest human barbarity isn't chronicled and detailed for all to see.