I didn't follow the Scott Peterson case. I didn't see what there was about it that warranted more attention than your average homicide. The O.J. Simpson matter involved a movie and sports star, some other peripheral celebrities, racial tensions, a couple of well-publicized public spectacles, colorful lawyers, some pretty serious charges of incompetence and/or treachery by the L.A. Police Department, and a murder case scenario that was chock full of fun stuff to study and discuss. The Peterson case seems to have had nothing of the sort. As far as I can tell, there wasn't even a good, solid controversy as to his guilt or innocence.
A crowd outside the courtroom cheered when the verdict was read. I'm wondering just what they were cheering for. One presumes they were all pretty certain that Peterson was guilty…so were they cheering because a guilty man was found guilty? I hate to think it's come to that in this country; that it's a cause for celebration when the system works the way it's supposed to work.
On CNN, I just saw a "legal analyst" say that the next task for the Defense is to convince the court that Peterson isn't so terrible that he warrants the death penalty. In other words: Yes, he plotted and committed the murder of his wife and unborn child…but it could have been worse. I don't think I'm going to follow that phase of the trial, either.