I never followed the Scott Peterson case. I don't know how obvious it is that he killed his pregnant spouse (assuming he did) and I have no more emotional investment in the matter than I have for any homicide involving people I never heard of before. I gather that this one got as much attention as it did because the media was hungry for another O.J. fest and the Robert Blake trial was not moving fast enough. Also, some anti-abortion forces wanted to sell the idea that Peterson had killed two human beings, one of whom just hadn't been born yet, so they apparently helped keep the matter front and center.
Two things did bother me, one being the whole concept of "the penalty phase." For seven days, the jury heard testimony about what kind of man Scott Peterson is, with the prosection defining him as "the worst kind of monster" and the defense arguing that he was deserving of sympathy and that killing him would just perpetuate the "senseless killing." I don't get the concept here, I'm afraid. If the jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy did it, then they've pretty much decided what kind of man he is. He's a First Degree Murderer. He may be a cute First Degree Murderer or a pathetic First Degree Murderer or a First Degree Murderer who had a rough childhood…but the guy is still a First Degree Murderer and should receive whatever the penalty is for First Degree Murder. We can argue about whether it should be death — I'm real torn on that issue — but that's a decision that should be made by society as a whole, not by twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty.
Second thing that bothers me: People cheering the sentence. I get the sense that people cheered the verdict as well, and it wasn't because they'd carefully studied the case and decided justice demanded Scott Peterson's destruction. They just kind of decided the guy was a smug slime who must've done it, the same way a lot of them were sure about Gary Condit. They may be right this time but I still don't see conviction and sentencing as a cause for jubilation. I think it's just sad that a human being does such a thing and then society has to turn around and end another life, whether via the Death Penalty or by tossing the person in San Quentin forever, which is almost the same thing. Perhaps if I had an emotional stake in a homicide trial — say, if a loved one had been the victim — I'd feel I'd "won" something with the verdict because I could now put the whole matter behind me and get on with my life. But most people didn't know the Petersons, didn't care a bit about them until the matter hit Basic Cable, and followed the case by choice. They could have put the matter behind them at any time just by turning off Larry King Live. So what's to celebrate?