Is the Laci Peterson case a double murder?
Fetal Homicide
Can you be charged with the murder of someone (or thing depending upon your view) if it isn't yet a human being with human rights according to the law. Yes says California, no says New Jersey. NOW (big surprise here with their tunnel-vision) believes that any attempt to charge Scott Peterson with the death of the unborn child is an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.
What do you think?
Nick
Can you be charged with the murder of someone (or thing depending upon your view) if it isn't yet a human being with human rights according to the law. Yes says California, no says New Jersey. NOW (big surprise here with their tunnel-vision) believes that any attempt to charge Scott Peterson with the death of the unborn child is an attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.
What do you think?
Nick
Comments
But these types of laws, like the "Unborn victims of violence act," are being pushed by pro-lifers. They're trying to get an unborn child recognized as a person, with the hope that that will set a precedent that an unborn child is legally regarded as a person.
I agree with most of those laws, as long as the intent was to kill the unborn child - I don't think there should be liability if the offender didn't know the woman was pregnant. That kind of strict liability was a feature of the UVVA in Congress a few years ago, but (I don't think) is a feature of the California law.
But I don't think that will or should lead to less abortion rights. Even if an unborn child is a legal person, that doesn't mean, IMO, that the government can force someone else to give birth to that person. I'm a legal person, and yet the government can't force you to give blood to me so that I will survive, for example.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think it has or should have any implications for abortion laws. Yes, abortions are legal, but obviously that doesn't mean you can perform an abortion on someone who doesn't want one.
But these types of laws, like the "Unborn victims of violence act," are being pushed by pro-lifers. They're trying to get an unborn child recognized as a person, with the hope that that will set a precedent that an unborn child is legally regarded as a person.
I agree with most of those laws, as long as the intent was to kill the unborn child - I don't think there should be liability if the offender didn't know the woman was pregnant. That kind of strict liability was a feature of the UVVA in Congress a few years ago, but (I don't think) is a feature of the California law.
But I don't think that will or should lead to less abortion rights. Even if an unborn child is a legal person, that doesn't mean, IMO, that the government can force someone else to give birth to that person. I'm a legal person, and yet the government can't force you to give blood to me so that I will survive, for example.
Wouldn't that lead to some silly defenses among these guys who can have some serious stakes when it becomes a multiple murder like in this case? I mean if saying, "I just thought she was fat," or "She was wearing a bulky sweater" is all that sits between you and the chair (or injection) wouldn't you be likely to apply that defense?
Nick
The only situation I know where intent is not an issue in a death penalty situation is felony murder. If you rob a bank and someone dies when your gun accidentally goes off, you are guilty of murder even if it was genuinely an accident. You assume responsibility because one of the risks of engaging in a violent act like robbing a bank is that someone could be killed. The point, as I see it, is to deter people from engaging in felonies - to make them responsible for the violence that could very likely result from robbing a bank, etc.
But I think this is different. If you murder a woman, you should only be guilty of double murder if you specifically intended to murder the baby too, and for that to be the case, you must know that the woman was pregnant. I think that's the case with this Laci Peterson case because that's what CA law says (AFAIK). But according to this UVVA, you could be guilty of the murder of the baby even if the woman herself didn't know she was pregnant.
But I do think the law is needed to deal with situations where the criminal intent was to interfere with a pregnancy. Say a husband and wife get in a fight because she's pregnant and wants the baby but he doesn't want it. He beats her on the stomach to try to kill the baby. If the baby dies, he should be guilty of more than just assault of the woman.
On the other hand, I don't have really strong feelings about it. Make it strict liability. You could argue that the assault or murder of a woman should always be a worse crime because of the possibility that the woman is pregnant. But that's not real consistent with your other thread going right now.
Charging someone for murder of an unborn baby in a society where abortion is legal is wrought with ethical craziness. So if the mom wants the baby then its murder, but what if I hang outside an abortion clinic and kick a pregnant woman in the gut thus causing her to lose the fetus. Would I be charged with murder or destruction of private property since she wanted to terminate her pregnancy?
Originally posted by hegor
Charging someone for murder of an unborn baby in a society where abortion is legal is wrought with ethical craziness. So if the mom wants the baby then its murder, but what if I hang outside an abortion clinic and kick a pregnant woman in the gut thus causing her to lose the fetus.
So do you see an ethical inconsistency between the legality of obtaining a nose job and the illegality of punching someone in the nose outside of a plastic surgeon's office?
It's double-murder.
This is just getting stupid, I am ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles.
I think Roe V Wade ruling could be expanded in this case.
Its one charge of murder and one charge of destruction of private property.
I'm pro-choice as well. Since I take the position that its not a life until its born (or capable of survival outside of the womb) then we cannot treat a fetus like a life-form in a case like this either. No double-standard with Hegor. But boy do I feel kind of lame now.
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't think it has or should have any implications for abortion laws...
NOW doesn't agree with you.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
NOW doesn't agree with you.
Yeah. It's clear that pro-life groups have fought for some of these laws, with the intention of setting a "fetus has legal rights" precedent. So the pro-choice groups have opposed them. But I still think there isn't any necessary slippery slope with laws like this.
Originally posted by groverat
This is just getting stupid, I am ashamed of sharing a view on abortion with a group so full of reactionary imbeciles.
Sorry groverat is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.
On the fetus---we have some indisputable scientific facts:
It has unique DNA
It controls its own development
It has a completely separate blood supply.
If you want to argue viability, a 5-second old fetus can still be in two-chamber heart mode---and is not viable.
The argument is NOT about whether killing a fetus is killing a human life---it never has been (except for the dimwitted.)
It is about women controlling their bodies.
I don't believe this is double murder.
Originally posted by ena
The argument is NOT about whether killing a fetus is killing a human life---it never has been (except for the dimwitted.)
If a fetus is not a human life what is it? It's alive and it's human ergo...
I have to admit that my first, initial reaction to this news (double murder) was "wait a minute...that means...".
Originally posted by hegor
Ok, I am now convinced this is a double standard.
I think Roe V Wade ruling could be expanded in this case.
Its one charge of murder and one charge of destruction of private property.
I'm pro-choice as well. Since I take the position that its not a life until its born (or capable of survival outside of the womb) then we cannot treat a fetus like a life-form in a case like this either. No double-standard with Hegor. But boy do I feel kind of lame now.
I am Pro-Life so no inconsistency on my part: double murder.
Plus at 8 months the child could have survived outside of the womb (!). People always ask "when is your due date?" but the true delivery time is 3 weeks before and 2 weeks after the due date without intervention. In other words, if you go into labor at 37 weeks, you can still give birth outside a hospital if you prefer.
That baby was a baby, especially at 8 months (which is a pretty broad description--anyway know exactly how far along she was?).
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
If a fetus is not a human life what is it? It's alive and it's human ergo...
I only mean the whole abortion debate in general. Scientifically speaking there is no denying that a abortion is murder. It's only a question on who controls a woman's body---rule of law or a gender's prerogative---it's a powerplay.
Originally posted by Naderfan
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade and the usual rule of thumb for most laws, when a woman is in the third trimester of pregnancy, the fetus "becomes" a person. The basic idea is that once you start moving into the end of the pregnancy, the baby is cabaple of living outside the mother, thus making it a living creature. That's why if someone murders a pregnant woman who's in her first or second trimester, he or she is only charged with one homicide, but if she's in the third, they're charged with double. At least in most instances. Obviously, not everyone's happy with this determination, but considering all the different prespectives and the fact that the Supreme Court is dealing with laws, not necessarily morals, it's probably the best we can do.
In CA, my understanding is that the law is that it could be murder any time past the embryonic stage (2 months, I think).
In about half of states with laws like this, no stage of pre-natal development is specified, and in the other half some limit is imposed, like being in the fetal stage, or being viable or "quick" (moving).
Originally posted by alcimedes
if this is how people look at it (third trimester baby, earlier fetus), or as it's never a child until it's born, how do you rationalize someone's rights and existance as a human being contingent on either their age (2nd trimester vs. 3rd) or physical location (in the womb vs. out)?
Fetus = from 2 months past conception up until birth. The fetal stage is the last stage of prenatal development. I don't undestand the rest of your post, but I just wanted to comment on that one part.