For centuries, laws did not require all this emoting and hand-wringing. Only within the past few decades have we been plunged into all this by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, creating new "rights" and procedures out of thin air in death penalty cases.
The Constitution never required this and the public's elected representatives never voted for this stuff. But such thinking was in vogue in the circles to which judges respond and they were praised by those for whom anything that can mitigate punishment is a good thing.
At the very least, the time is long overdue to recognize that such judicial activism sets off repercussions that extend far beyond anything the judges may have contemplated, much less be able to monitor and reshape realistically. More often, politically correct whims get set in concrete.
The Constitution of the United States requires "due process of law." But that very concept implies that there can be such a thing as undue process. There can be too much, as well as too little, legal process.
The Scott Peterson case demonstrates that legal processes can be excessive, not only in terms of time, but also in terms of the kinds of non-legal considerations and indulgences that are allowed into the administration of justice.
Courts do not have unlimited resources or unlimited time. How many other cases must be put on hold while emotions are vented? How many other criminals must be allowed to walk the streets awaiting trial while the courtroom becomes the scene of a soap opera?