Thats the fair argument regarding the death penalty, and my only caveat is this; that is why judges have discretionary sentencing power. I guess my real problem with the trial is the sneaky way the jury dismissed that young guy; the woman who was obviously searching for some angle to hang an acquittal on and the last guy; who was the foreman. He was both MD and JD and as such probably knew more of the law than the others. They gave the impression; bourne out by testimony from the three jurors ejected, that they bullied and strongarmed the rest into the verdict they chose. I would ordinarily dismiss this as a personality conflict if not for the obvious glee with which they offered their post trial feelings about the case.
I am in favor of the death penalty but I also respect the rule of law and this smelled too much like a lynch mob to me. None of the post trial interviews focused on the facts of the case; all were predicated on Petersen's lack of affect and remorse. If the jurors had at least offered some real rational and factual basis for their descision I would respect the privacy and difficulty of serving under this onus.
But after the fifth statement to the effect that he is going to burn it became somewhat sickening to hear.
Due to the nature of this somewhat irregular jury behaviour and the lack of clear evidence, I feel the judge was unduly harsh.
But your point is well taken and most accurate.
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
