 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:27
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Certainly Mike, I didn't mean as a direct legal result. Instead, that this situation changed America somehow...the trajedy of the death of that unborn child made people realize the value of those lives kinda thing. Sure, very unlikely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
We are not talking about infants. We are talking about tumours that haven't yet been born. |
it's a damn shame your mother didn't believe in abortion...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-04-2003 04:40
. Perhaps you are confusing me with ZKribbler... my left-wing counterpart 
.
|