The USA television network recently aired its made-for-television movie “Perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story.”
This movie, under the claims of being based on a true story, summarized the accounts of two of Laci Peterson’s best friends.
The fact that this movie was broadcast while Laci’s husband, Scott Peterson, is on trial is appalling.
This movie, under the guise of being a true story, paints Scott Peterson, a man presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, as a guilt-ridden, highly-suspicious character. Dean Cain portrays Scott Peterson with an almost sinister air about himself.
I should also point out that the movie was filmed before Scott Peterson’s trial even began. Using my knowledge on receiving a fair trial, this seems to border on fascism.
When entertainment ploys like this movie are filtered out into the public, it can easily change the case about which it is trying to inform the public.
Another example of this unnecessary public interest in this case is Fox News’ almost fanatical following of the Laci Peterson murder. By their quest to bombard the public with as much information on the case as possible, they led to a tainted and unfair presentation of primary suspect Scott Peterson.
Before I start to lose you faithful television viewers who have already written off Scott Peterson as a soon-to-be member of the California penal system, I just want to point out that although he may seem guilty to the average person, it is both unfair and wrong to persecute him for a crime of which he has not yet been convicted.
With our country’s demand for up-to-the-minute information on current events, we forget what sacrifices are being made for our information society.
Although I agree that any murder is a tragic event the public should hear about, the media shouldn’t sensationalize murder cases.
The public has no role in the criminal proceedings of the courtroom. The judge goes through a laborious process to find potential jurors who have not already formed an opinion of the case at hand.
A jury is usually safe from any publicity resulting from the trial. However, televised reporting could corrupt the potential jurors before the jury selection.
Such a bombardment of reporting on the Peterson case, as well as past example like the Simpson car chase, have led to bias in the public eye. As hard as it is to do, the public should not form opinions as to a person’s guilt-this could lead to a wrongful incarceration.
Refraining from making judgments is hard for the average person to do, with the news channels constantly giving you “Peterson Murder Mystery” updates along the bottom of your screen every 30 seconds.
Since they’re broadcasting over public airwaves, these networks have a responsibility to set some guidelines, as far as presenting information regarding the murder.
We should have noticed this obsession in our culture with these murders when CourtTV, a network devoted to the proceedings of such crimes, took the airwaves.
We all remember exactly where we were when O.J. was found innocent. Our fascination with these criminal proceedings has made us forget about the rights that the accused still have.
The Sixth Amendment promises the accused a fair and impartial jury for a trial. Because of these televised tirades, however, it is becoming harder to secure this impartiality for the accused.
Until we can ignore the media sensationalism involving court cases, those who are accused in the United States will be doing so under a biased stare from news channels and the Americans themselves.
After all, who will really be able to tolerate another poor made-for-television movie with Dean Cain?
Edd Mullin is a sophomore English major. He can be reached at [email protected].