Exactly. It was the family who used the media as an outlet for searching for their missing loved one, and once the media becomes involved, they stay there.

Actually, I only started syspecting the husband when news reports got out about suspicious behavior.

Frankly I'm glad I won't have to hear about Scott and Lacy any more. It's not that I am cold and unfeeling, quite the contrary, it's just that I wonder why the media and the nation grabbed onto this story. Sure, it involved attractive people living what appeared to be the American dream, but it was overkill (no pun intended), especially when you consider the following:

Year Male Female
1976 1,357 1,600
1977 1,294 1,437
1978 1,202 1,482
1979 1,262 1,506
1980 1,221 1,549
1981 1,278 1,572
1982 1,141 1,480
1983 1,113 1,462
1984 989 1,442
1985 957 1,546
1986 985 1,586
1987 933 1,494
1988 854 1,582
1989 903 1,415
1990 859 1,501
1991 779 1,518
1992 722 1,455
1993 708 1,581
1994 692 1,405
1995 546 1,317
1996 515 1,324
1997 451 1,217
1998 515 1,323
1999 426 1,218
2000 442 1,252
2001 399 1,202
2002 388 1,202
(source US Federal Bureau of Investigation)

What appears above is the total number of 'spouse killing spouse' statistics for the year given. Shocking. Disgusting. With numbers like this, why select one to highlight...it does a dis-service to the other perpitrators and victims...or maybe it does them a favor. It's reminicent of JonBenet Ramsey and Elizabeth Smart.

I'm sure the media would use the excuse that they only provide what the public wants. Have we become that exploitative and jaded that we require this as our entertainment?

I knew nothing of the case until I read it here.

Those figures fascinate me, they horrify me too but that goes as said. What interests me is the pattern shown above, a general decrease in the number of spouses murdered but most particularly the huge drop in men killed by their wives. How odd.

Sue:

Here are some more statistics that cover a wider population and indicate that women tend to endure violence for an extended period of time.

How sad.

On average, in the United Kingdom:
*One woman is killed every day
*A woman is beaten 37 times before reporting to the police
*There are 600 incidents of domestic violence every minute
*In 90% of DV crimes, children are in the room at the time

In Europe:
*98% of victims of domestic violence are women and that one in five has been subject to violence by her husband or partner on at least one occasion
*Only about one in 20 incidents of domestic violence are reported to the police, even though domestic violence is considered to be a crime that can be punished by law

"Annually 14,000 women in Russia are killed by husbands or relatives"
(Russian Presidential Commission Report)

"More than 60 million females are missing from population statistics around the world - killed by their own families, deliberately or through neglect because of their gender" UNICEF

"Domestic violence continues to undermine the lives of one out of every two women in some nations" UNICEF

Source: International DV Conference: Enough is Enough 29-30 October 2000, London

5% of ALL murder victims in 2003 were killed by their husband or boyfriend.

I don't have the statistics here with me, but I wrote an article based on the 2003 uniform crime statistics from the FBI for work... Hopefully I'll remember on Monday and put the text here relavant to this discussion.

As I keep my eye on the news, I hope that his sentencing won't take as long as the trail. Of course I know it will knowing out court system.

What do you all think he should get? Life or death? What do you think the jury will give him even though Scott's lawers are trying to repeal the who thing because they think he is innocent.

I think he should get life without parole.

I'm not comfortable with applying the death sentence to a case where all of the evidence is circumstantial.

Well, the verdict just came back.

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked.

I'm glad he got the death penalty. I can only hope that on the day of his execution he is as frightened and scared as Laci must have been the day she was murdered.

Versailles, I would have to agree with you. A coworker of mine said that he felt the judge was trying to get both a conviction and a death sentence. That may or may not be the case, but was there real proof that he actually did it? If he did, then maybe I would go for a death sentence, but if most of the evidence was circumstantial or something of the like, then a life sentence without parole would be sufficient. I, nor anyone here, was a part of that jury, but when three jurors are tossed, that should have either caused a hung jury or a mistrial. A mistrial can be retried, but a hung jury cannot.

I have to agree with versailles as well. I haven't been following the trial closely, and I was certainly not one of the jurors, but putting him to death? That won't magically bring back Laci or the baby. Satisfies someone's temporary sense of revenge, maybe, but the hurt won't go away with his death. His poor mother pleading for him...now there'll be even more grief because another family will lose its child.

(Although, with California's prison system, he probably won't be executed for decades.)

I am so confused! I tend to agree with his guilt (and that his character is WAY questionable) but to give him death? But this isn't about horrible men, dead wives or unborn children - it is about the courtroom. I still think there is a reasonable doubt. And, as per my confusion, I personally think he did it. But I really can't stake my life (or his) on that assumption.

Though I support the right of people to rid the world of murderers [despite their mothers distress, I`m pretty sure Gacy,Hitler and Stalin etc all had mothers] when the case is based on circumstancial evidence the death penalty seems to me to be inappropriate. This creature has been found guilty by a jury based on circumstancial evidence and should be given life without parole in my opinion. If in the future more solid evidence is found he should be removed from this world, in my opinion.
My own comments appear to have been made by someone having a bet each way but not everything is cut and dried in this particular case. Lol.....All convicted are guilty but some are more guilty than others.

According to MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6711259/):

"And to hear the jurors tell it, Peterson’s apparent lack of emotion — from the day his wife disappeared through the last day of testimony two years later — was the final piece that doomed him."

“He lost his wife and his child — it didn’t seem to faze him,” said juror Steve Cardosi. “And while that was going on ... he is romancing a girlfriend. That doesn’t make sense to me. At all.”

"The jury had been told that Peterson did not wear his emotions on his sleeve. But juror Richelle Nice told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Tuesday that she noticed Peterson becoming emotional during the penalty phase of his trial.

“Is it just that he doesn’t show emotion for Laci and Conner?” she asked.

She said her thoughts were with Laci Peterson and the fetus she carried."

I'm sure all bad people have mothers too, but rarely do you see them pleading for their children's lives in the courtroom. You also can't compare Peterson to Hitler, Stalin, or Gacy, who were systematic mass/serial murderers. Totally not on the same level.

On top of all that the evidence was circumstantial in this case, thus I agree the death sentence is inappropriate. I was merely pointing out that the mom's plea made an impact on me. There were also other character witnesses, you know, who said he was a good person.

And then, there's the jury's statement that it was his "lack of emotions" that got him convicted. THAT seems very wrong. You're supposed to be convicted and sentenced based on the facts, not your demeanor. If all one needs to get off more lightly is to show emotions, then heck, all attorneys should be advising their clients to fake remorse or cry in the courtroom or whatever. Where's the justice in that?

Does double jeopardy apply to sentencng too? That is, if concrete evidence shows up at a later date, could Petersen be sentenced to death? I doubt it.

Actually I see Peterson on the same level as the others I mentioned Niveous............ A gram of cyanide swallowed will have the same effect as an ounce.......My view of killers.

That's an interesting take, roos, and you're totally entitled to that. Though legally (under both domestic law and international law) there are gradations of killing/murder with degrees of punishment recognized as appropriate to each. A killing is a killing but there is a difference between negligent homicide and murder in the first degree and genocide. Peterson's name won't ever go down in history as infamously as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, or even Dahmer and Gacy.

She was a pretty white girl who was supposedly murdered by her husband. That's a good story.

My mistake. I was replying to some posts on the end of page one.