Murder by overexposure

Originally released for publication November 10, 2004
(c) 2004 by Steve Martaindale

Hopefully, by the time you read this, the 12 most important people in the United States will have come to a decision – whether Scott Peterson killed his wife, Laci, and their unborn son.

Don’t get me wrong. Prosecution of murder trials is serious and important; we must do what we can to see justice served upon those who take human life. Furthermore, such trials are definitely newsworthy. But there are limits of reasonability.

What made the Christmas Eve 2002 disappearance and death of Laci Peterson so important a national news item that the reporting of it seems surpassed only by the war and the presidential election?

According to the FBI, there were 14,054 murders in the country in 2002, an average of more than 38 a day. Only 3,251 victims were females, not quite 10 a day. Not another one of those made national headlines.

One cannot even declare the story is unique because it may have involved a man killing his wife. The FBI numbers 601 cases in 2002 where a man murdered his wife. Actually, there is likely many more because there are more than 6,000 cases where the relationship between the victim and murderer was not know. Presumably, Laci Peterson would still be in that category.

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that an average of two women a day were killed by their husbands in 2002. Three-quarters as many more were killed by boyfriends.

We’re back to the question, “Why has the Scott Peterson trial so consumed our nation’s attention?”

If you’re expecting an answer here, I’ll save you a little time; I have none.

Not so speedy

As a direct result of the national media attention – I really believe this – the trial stretched out over an unbelievably long time, more than five months.

In my reporter days, I covered a few murder trials. In one, a man with no legs hid a handgun in his wheelchair and pulled it on a neighbor to end a long-running argument over a paper flag. In another, a young man beat to death an elderly man for a few dollars. Sensational stories, to be sure, but not sensationalized by the local media.

Of all the murder trials I have covered, I recall only one that lasted more than a week and it ended on the sixth or seventh day. And that included jury deliberations.

One can understand the media interest in the likes of O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart and Kobe Bryant. However, even trials of former football heroes and actors cannot be justified for a period of months. That is not justice but is a war of financial attrition. The biggest losers are taxpayers who foot the prosecution’s bill and who see public legal resources focused on one case while less glamorous trials get the leftovers.

Again, what makes the Peterson case glamorous? He is a former fertilizer salesman. She was a substitute teacher. Both are, or were, absolutely gorgeous. Some have said the case got more attention because the victim was white, but the majority of murder victims in 2002 were white.

When a verdict does come down, we’ll read it or listen to it, partly because we won’t be able to avoid it but more because we’ve heard so much that we must complete the story. After Scott Peterson settles into a jail cell or starts trying to rebuild his life, play along with the national media and see if you can predict which will become the next story that will be overblown and force-fed to the masses.
(c) 2004 by Steve Martaindale