How can Scott Peterson be guilty of murdering his unborn son?

[Lancer]

It would be amazing if the murder of an unborn child led to the overturning of Roe. Not likely unfortunately...

Good link Obiwan, thanks.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's just pandering to irrational whim to class it as one in one case and one in the other.

Bingo. It's a total double standard.

The answer IMO is that killing a fetus is a crime, but not as awful as a real murder. In some cases it can be justified. To make an analogy, if someone was starving and they shoplifted some food, you probably wouldn't charge them with theft because you consider the "crime" justified. The same would apply to abortions.

In the Peterson case, clearly the murder of the fetus was unjustified. Hence Scott Peterson can rot in hell and we should probably help him get there as fast as possible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lancer
It would be amazing if the murder of an unborn child led to the overturning of Roe. Not likely unfortunately...

Good link Obiwan, thanks.

Whatever you may think of Roe, and I'm not a big fan of it, it's rather fortunate that prosecution of this case wouldn't touch it, because the factual dissimilarities are overwhelming, and any legal system that disregarded the factual basis underlying case law would be quite anarchic. You'd certainly never want to get caught up in it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Assumes that unborn children are somehow less than persons. If one defines human life beginning at conception, then prolifers are most definitely protecting human life.

The only problem with that, as I pointed out before, is cutting yourself becomes murder.

[Drake Tungsten]

And before I get flamed - I'm probably the only person on this forum who has no settled position on the abortion issue, pro or contra.

You're not the only one.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
The notion of prosecuting people for "murdering" fetuses is a political fraud, given the liberal policies on abortion in developed nations.

Either the fetus is a person, or it isn't. It's just pandering to irrational whim to class it as one in one case and one in the other.

Actually, if a fetus isn't a person I don't think a neonate should be either. So people who kill neonates should not be done for murder if we are to remain consistent.

It's not inconsistent or a political fraud, unless you draw different conclusions from substantially similar facts. The law traditionally defines "substantially similar" a little more narrowly than "they're both fetuses, but all the rest of the facts are different"

First, the prosecution as murder is fully consistent with Roe v. Wade, as this was a late third trimester fetus, and thus within the states' reach to assert a protective interest. Roe doesn't specify that states must assert any particular interest, just that they have the right to do so as they choose once the fetus is past the state of viability.

It would be inconsistent if Laci Peterson had been murdered at 8 weeks of pregnancy, it's not inconsistent when she was murdered at 34+ weeks of pregnancy.

Second, one of the prosecution theories will be murder for financial gain, which is one of fourteen "special circumstances" to first degree murder which make it a capital murder case. A special circumstances finding will result in a mandatory DP or LWOP sentence, instead of the standard 25 years to life for first degree murder. The financial gain element may be negative (avoidance of divorce over the affair), and it will be positive (the $250,000 life insurance policy). To prove elements of the murder for financial gain special circumstance, it's clear that the intent has to be to kill both mother and child, because killing just the mother leaves the father as a full time parent, with additional expenses and loss of income, etc., that arguably negate any financial gain. Since the intent is to kill both, the timing of one day before birth, or one day after, is immaterial, as long as the fetus is past the third trimester which is the minimum reach of state interest under Roe.

The "fraud" or rather, the clever prosecutorial tactic, is in the double murder prosecution. Otherwise, this is a very weak special circumstances case. The defense will argue Scott Peterson already had a life insurance policy on himself, and the policy he bought on Laci was just prudent financial planning at the time - if he somehow tragically became a widower and single parent, he'd have all these expenses and limited work availability, blah blah blah. Kidnapping can't be proven, the manner of death may not be known in great detail, so proving poison or torture would be near impossible, even if they occurred.

Multiple murder, though, is in itself a special circumstance, and if a defendant wishes to contest the legal applicability of charges against him, he has to do so in pretrial law and motion.

For example, if Scott Peterson was also charged with arson, in an arraignment where none of the necessary elements of that crime were alleged, his attorney would file the necessary pre-trial motions to dismiss the charges. If he didn't, and went to trial, a jury could in theory deliver a guilty verdict, and the legal deficiency of the charge couldn't be contested, because once it went to trial without pretrial objection, those objections are waived.

Now let's go back to the second murder count. The only legal argument that can be made against the second count of murder is that the fetus is not legally a human being, and thus is not covered by California Penal Code Section 187 (California's murder statute). Is that the sort of motion an innocent, wrongly charged, grieving, widowed daddy-to-be would make regarding his own, sweet, innocent, murdered son?

File that motion, and the defandant has painted himself as an inhuman monster with absolute zero sympathy potential from any jury. It's nothing short of legal suicide, and the degree of callousness would make the jury much more amenable to the prosecution's financial gain theory on the insurance policy.

Don't file that motion, and you waive the right to object to the charge, and have to go to trial on the facts, knowing that the second murder will be enough to sustain a special circumstances conviction, even if the prosecution fails to prove murder for financial gain.

I wouldn't call it a "brilliant" tactic, because it's fairly obvious to any aggressive trial lawyer, but I would call it admirably ruthless.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:
If you don't agree with Peter Singer's justifications, how do you rationalise killing a neonate?

If pregnancy is diagnosed before implantation the probability of birth eventually happening is only about 25-30%. That means that a lot of fertilised eggs just don't see the light of day. I think that the pro lifers should be upset about this and agitate for medical research to prevent it since more potential children die this way than from abortions. It is only until 6 weeks of gestation that the probability of birth goes up to 80-90%.

Aah, but my point is germaine to this point. Why do women spontaneously abort? Science is just starting to answer this question. If induced abortion increases the risk of subsequent miscarriages, induced abortion is raising the first number you mention, 25-30%. Without abortion, we would predict that this number will drop, and the overall number of spontaneous abortions will drop as well.

The answer IMO is that killing a fetus is a crime, but not as awful as a real murder. In some cases it can be justified.

Jaguar Warrior:

Which circumstances do you feel killing a fetus is justified?

Would we be justified in killing an infant for these same reasons?

[Ben Kenobi]

The only problem with that, as I pointed out before, is cutting yourself becomes murder.

UR:



You've never provided evidence for this position beyond :"ask Provost Harrison."

Forgive me, but I do not consider that a valid point to win a debate.

Have you found more evidence supporting your contention?

[Ben Kenobi]

"What science is that?," Agathon asks

A very good question, indeed.

The study of human development within the womb,

The science of Embryology.

Here is an excellent site with black and white pictures.

http://anatomy.med.unsw.edu.au/CBL/Embryo/WWWHuman/stages/stages.htm

[Joseph]

Can any of you tell me or us, if any state in the US will not try a person for double murder for killing a pregnant mother?
The story of Scott Peterson. Several years ago, he and a buddy was going to college in San Luis Obispo. A girl name Christine Smart was also going there. Her father is an Administrator for the Napa Valley Unified School Distr. where I now work. (I do not know him personally) She disappeared one night after going to a party. Scott and his buddy was seen talking to her earlier. According to the police, the buddy was the last person to see her alive. When the police came to the campus with dogs, the dogs went to the buddy's room. The night she disappeared the buddy's father made a late night trip to the campus for whatever reason. (You guys will just have to talk to the Police to find out why the father made this trip so late.)
Now to Modesto (my place of birth. I grow up 10 mi. south of Modesto).
Scott said he went fishing in Berkeley the day she disappear. Richmond is about 5 to 7 miles. from Berkeley. We have very strong current in the greater San Francisco bay. She could have been dumped in Berkeley, but the current move her body to the Richmond area. The doctors think that her body was tied down by wire or a rope, to cement, and after the salt water deteriorated the body, various part fell away and allow the body to float. The same for the baby, as the body deteriorated the baby was allowed to float free.

I think that Scott may have help his buddy and his father with the Smart Daughter, and now this. Hang him high.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Jaguar Warrior:

Which circumstances do you feel killing a fetus is justified?

Not many. I'm pretty pro-life, but I fully understand the need for exceptions to the rule. It depends on how old the fetus is. I think that it's important to realize that there isn't a single point when the fetus/baby becomes a person with rights. It's a gradual thing. So you have to have a better reason at 5 months than you do at 4 for a justified abortion.

Would we be justified in killing an infant for these same reasons?

No. Killing an infant is never acceptable. The mother can give it to an adoption agency, and no matter how much things suck there, it's better than being dead.

[Berzerker]

I found out about an incident from my own childhood that counts as strong proof that thought precedes language.

You don't say.

If the woman is Laci, she was murdered while still pregnant. The baby shows far less detioration than the woman so it must have remained within her body for some time after she was held down in the water. One pathologist said gasses probably built up inside her eventually expelling the baby... Either Scott Peterson is really stupid...tying his alibi directly to the body's location or the real murderer knew he was going to fish there and wanted his alibi destroyed. Yeah, that's the ticket, Johnnie...No...wait, it was a Colombian drug cartel...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
UR:



You've never provided evidence for this position beyond :"ask Provost Harrison."

Forgive me, but I do not consider that a valid point to win a debate.

Have you found more evidence supporting your contention?

I went though this a few times before.

There is no physical difference between a fertilised egg and a body cell.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is no physical difference between a fertilised egg and a body cell.

I call BS.

[C0ckney]

indeed. i know you're in china, where human life isn't valued very much at all, but surely even you can understand the stupidity of that statement.