POLL: Should the murderer of a pregnant women be charged with 2 murders?

Remove all ads!

The case of Laci Peterson has caused quite a scandal with the pro-choice/pro-life crowd.

For those of you not familiar with the case, Lucy Peterson, a woman who was 8 months pregnant was found dead, washed ashore near her husbands fishing spot where his alibi places him. The 8-month-old fetus was also found (it sounds like somehow it was separated from her body, still unclear on this) dead. The prime suspect, her husband Scott Peterson has been charged with 2 counts of murder.

The pro-choice supporters are arguing that as the baby was unborn, Scott should only be charged with 1 murder, not two, as if you recognize the fetus (who was already named Conner) as a life, then the abortion of a fetus would also be murder.

So this question is as stated in the title.

[ April 23, 2003, 04:32: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 31 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should the murderer of a pregnant women be charged with 2 murders? (31 votes.)

Should the murderer of a pregnant women be charged with 2 murders? (Choose 1)
* 2 lives were ended, 2 murder charges - 42% (13)
* 1 life, and one unborn fetus=1 life, 1 murder charge - 58% (18)

 

One. The child wasn't born yet.

 

That's an interesting case. In my country abortion is legal. Which I find good. I don't know that for sure, but I think in almost all countries, it's only legal till approx. 3 months.

But anyway, in countries where abortion is legal, unwanted abortion is still a crime.

So, this case has actually nothing to do with legalizing abortion or pro choice at all. It only depends, how the country has "named" the statutary law concerning an unwanted abortion.

It was an attack on the belly of a mother. I'd say it's the severest case of personal injury. Like cutting off an arm or a leg.

[ April 22, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

She was seven and a half months pregnant...My legal understanding is that a fetus that far along can survive outside the womb in an incubator. That, my friend, is life. And the extermination of it at that point is murder...

I don't want to get into an abortion discussion, after all, it's a matter of semantics. It all comes down to personal belief. My personal belief is if a fetus is not viable outside the womb, it is technically not alive yet...Feel free to flame as necessary.

 

Just stating my opinion here, no arguing necessary -- 2 lives ended, 2 murders. I'm not in favor of killing abortionists, bombing clinics, or any of that nonsense, but I am opposed to abortion as a method of birth control.

 

Abortion is murder. This was more than just abortion. The murdered must have known the victim was pregnant is the victim had been pregnant for eight months (I myself was born after seven and contrary to what some people might suggest, I am alive) - it's easily seen. However, legally there's still some difference between killing and causing death (like causing the foetus's death by killing the mother). However, the murderer was fully conscious of the facts. What's more it's scary what kind of bastard it takes to murder a pregnant woman. I'm against vengeance in legal punishment, but certainly no mercy and no favour here as far as I am concerned.

 

The answer is no. Unfortunately, we must be fair, even when dealing with people like that. Since they did not actually kill the baby, because it died as a result of the mother's death, they should be charged with only 1 murder and not 2. I think that a baby inside of a mother is not a baby yet bud indeed actually part of the mother still and should not yet be considered a seperate being.

 

Everything I've read or heard about this case indicates that Scott Peterson wanted both wife Laci and son Connor out of the picture. If he didn't intend to kill the baby, why didn't he wait a few more months?

 

I actually don't know much about laws, but because the child had already a life of his own, doesn't that make it only one murder? The child could survive outside the mother womb, but the death of the mother was the cause of the babies death. They weren't both killed, the baby was still probably alive, after the mother died.
Am I making any sence? My lack of knowledge of the English language prevents me from saying it the way I would like, so I will try to make it clearer by adding an example: When a baby is already born in the natural way, and the baby lives with the mother. Suddenly, for whatever reason, the mother is killed, but the baby is not hurt by the killer. With the mother death there is no one to take care of the baby and because of that, the baby dies. That would probably be thought of as one murder, although the one murder led to the death of another person. Sir Bel said that the baby already had a life of it's own, so unless the baby was hurt itself and died because of it's wounds, I think it would be considerd as only one murder.

 

I agree with Silverblade on the whole english subject, that's why you won't find me in the alley a whole lot. Sad as it is because I would really want to contribute my opinion but I can't put it out in a way in which I am satisfied.

On this subject I have to say it was one murder, baby was still in the womb. But I have to say if it was the intention of the father to kill her so he would kill the unborn baby at the same time, that would make it two kills.
Now I can hear you say 'but he must have known that the baby would die if he kills the mother'
Well people are very very stupid.

 

Not to be flippant, but saying that the baby died because the mother couldn't care for it, is kind of like saying people don't kill people, guns and bullets actually kill people.

 

My Sotilasmestari (can't say the rank in English as I've no idea what it is) in the army actually had an argument with me about how he thought that there was nothing to point that a gun was made for killing any more than a sponge. As either *could* be used to kill, it's always the persons fault. As he viewed it, a gun is only a thermophysical (yup, don't know what this is in English either) device meant to propel objects out of the barrel with high-speeds, and has nothing to do with killing as it is. Well anyone can make a good guess as to how much brains he must've had left.

Anyway I've been through my view of things here before so I'll just make the rest of the coming story short by saying:

As long as the baby resides in the mother's womb, it's not life. And certainly someone who kills but one "person" is indeed guilty only of one murder. What if the mother was having twins? Or triples? And if this mother was just attacked on by a common street thug who didn't even have time to look at the situation, meaning the time to see that the woman was pregnant. Should he be charged of 4 murders then (well I'd personally shoot every single mere theaving bastard if I were allowed to, but that's beside the point here)? No. As long as the baby isn't a separate being perceivable by others, it's not considered life, and it's not murder.

As for comparing some artificial machine with a mother's womb to decide if the baby is "alive" enough to live on their own, is just plain lame and sick (no pun intended). In the case in question, the guy responsible should be given heavier charges/penalty because of the extreme cruelty involved in the case, given the state of the woman that was murdered, and that she was soon to give birth to a new life. But he should only be charged with one murder.

 

I think he should be hrged with two murders..what if that baby was supposed to create something great? Something like a cure for aids or something like that? I think he should be charged with two murders.

 

It is a dilemma, altough I do not think it has anything to do with the abortion question as not many pro-choicers think that abortion is a viable option that late in the pregnancy.

I think in a case like this it has to be decided on a case to case basis, weighing motivations and knowledge to come to a conclusion. If a robber had shot her as she resisted the him stealing her purse I think he should only be accused of one murder. As it seems like it was the father he knew what it was about and was probably after the life of both of them he could be accused of one act of murder and one act of manslaughter with the respect of the child.

I voted one murder though as that is what I generally think.

 

Joaqin,

Unfortunately, the leaders of the pro-choice movement in America operate in the same manner as the NRA. They both believe that any laws passed that in any way interfere with their issue are an incrementalist attack. The NRA is against the ban on assault weapons, because they think that one by one, small gun laws will eventually end up in prohibition of gun ownership. Pro-choice leaders are against laws forbidding 3rd trimester, and partial birth abortions, as they see it as the first step in making all abortions illegal (they are legal in some states under some circumstances).

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are not aware of either stance.

In case anyone questions my motives, I will state that I am pro-choice (in the first trimester) but do not believe that abortion is right (that is between you and whoever you worship), and believe in the right to responsibly own reasonable firearms.

 

I personally think, this problem derives from the fact, that the NRA and pro-choice organisations are very dependend on the constitution. One one hand, both need their "interpretation" to protect their interests. On the other hand, a fundamental discussion over those legal problematics is prevented, because the always take the constitution to the frontline of the debate.

Now, discussions about laws concerning commercial issues are not overshadowed by this "hide behind the constitution" effect, therefore they are much more "rational", imho. Because the first ten commandments (or amendments ?) don't talk too much about common law.

 

This was actually not the point made in my example. The death of the mother led to the death of the baby, whether the killer should be judged for killing two people, there must be taken into account whether the killer wanted the baby also death or just the mother. If he had taken effort or was deliberately planning to kill the baby and the mother, he should be judged for two murders. If he was only killing the mother, then he should be sentenced for only one murder, because in a weird way the death of the mother led to the death of the baby, and in general, he couldn't do anything about the baby dying. Like I said, I'm no lawyer, I don't no any legal terms, but there must be one for an accidental death. The baby was eight months, if there was no harm done to the baby, the medical people could have done some emergency procedure, so that the baby was actually born, without the mother alive. If the mother dies the baby should be able to live, in this stage of the development.

 

I guess my view of it is colored by my legal training.

In killing a woman who is 8 months pregnant, you can be charged with 2 counts of murder (at least in the US)

1) The murder (based on the facts I've heard so far) steer towards premeditation.

2) The murder of Laci was the proximate cause of the fetus' death...Meaning that by killing the mother, the death of the fetus would be a reasonable and natural result. Since that result is foreseeable (another legal term) a second count of murder is proper in this instance.

3) A lot of the case law in the US for adding a murder charge to a fetus in the womb is based on viability...That is, What is the percentage chance of the fetus living outside the womb in an incubator? Generally, IIRC, 6 months is usually accepted as a fetal viability point.

Again, this is the law where I live...Yours may vary.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Depaara. also who is to say what may have become of that child? maybe that child could have been the one to come up with the answer to world hunger or another such malady?

all life is precious especially the children.
i have two kids of my own. wanna' see me go postal? mess with one of them.....

I guess you all know how i voted.

'nuff said.

 

I recall that a classmate of mine stated that an aborted baby could grow up to cure cancer or solve world hunger, and so on. Another classmate responded that the aborted could could very well grow up to be the next Hitler. In retrospect, I have to wonder if Hitler's mother would have aborted her child if she knew what he was going to do.

I'm just playing back an argument that I saw occur. I favor abortion legally, simply because more damage could happen if it were illegalized.