While I can understand the NOW’s concern is it really the best strategy re winning public hearts and minds, to do this just after they have fished their bodies out of the water?
I am pro-women’s-choice, not pro-murderer’s-choice so I was glad to hear that he is being charged with double-homicide.
While I really want to see Peterson go up for the death penalty, using the murder of his unborn child may not be the best way to justify it. Establishing legal rights for the unborn is part of a very slippery slope that the current administration is greasing with all its might.
There are enough other egregious factors in this case to trigger a finding of special circumstances. It appears as though this murder was done for profit. Witness the life insurance policy taken out in her name only. One would think that both parents would be covered. His abrupt disposal of her vehicle represents another instance of this as well. Attempts to sell the house are perhaps the most damning of all. Evidently, Scott Peterson knew quite well that Laci was never going to return. Were I a married man, one of the last things I would do is to sell the family home. How can a man anticipate the safe return of his wife and potential child while selling their house?
Peterson appears to have earned the rightful wrath of prosecuting attorneys in this case. His lack of cooperation, dissembling and outright flouting of the law all speak towards the full might of it being applied. He has done everything but tighten the noose around his own neck. Should he found guilty, let us make sure that this too is done.
NOW almost has to say something like this, who else is going to? I’m guessing that Marva Stark and her fellow NOW members are not saying this to “win public hearts and minds” but because they feel it’s worth making. If one is opposed to fetal homicide statutes (and I am), one has to be willing to speak up against them even in the most tragic, heart-wrenching, public cases. It doesn’t mean the speaker is any less horrified by the brutal murder of a pregnant young woman.
To everyone reading this, I’m not sure exactly why the unidentified mod who moved this felt it belonged more in MPSIMS than IMHO, as I thought I was obviously soliciting other dopers opinions on this, but… whatever. Please feel free to offer your opinions as to the advisability of this action by NOW.
I thought that one of the key ideas behind abortion was that it is a woman’s right to choose. Somehow I doubt that Laci Peterson was given much of a choice in this instance. This issue has nothing to do with abortion.
IANA lawyer, but I can see how this would have serious ramifications for abortion rights. If Scott Peterson is charged with murder of the fetus, this bestows “citizenship” of the fetus. If Scott can be charged with murdering it, then precedent is set that the fetus has the right to not be killed, and that could be the basis for overturning Roe vs. Wade.
My humble opinion is that a fetus does not have that right, and Scott Peterson should only be charged with the murder of Laci.
Shouldn’t the fact that, by all indications, Laci wanted to carry this baby to term have some bearing, at least in this particular case?
Gads, I hate “slippery slopes.”
And I’m Pro-Choice, btw.
Given the specifics of the case, a double murder charge sounds about right. The guy could have bumped his wife off at any time to get the insurance money, but he did it when she was eight months pregnant (rather than wait until their son was born) so that right there shows a complete lack of regard for the baby, and a malicious intention to prevent his life…in a case like this isn’t an less horrific than killing a newborn. OTOH, pro-life or not, I wouldn’t like a law that went applied murder charges to an unborn baby’s death until they were viable (3rd trimester, generally), which this baby most probably was since the intial reports thought it was a full term infant that had been discovered.
They only need to get Scott Peterson for one murder. I do not see what purpose is being served by charging him with the other murder, other than advancing the anti-abortion agenda. NOW is right to oppose. It’s not as if a jury is going to let him off for JUST murdering Laci.
Does the death penalty become more likely if he is charged with 2 murders?
Here in Ohio we already have fetal protection laws on the books. A widower whose pregnant wife and almost full-term baby were killed in an auto accident fought for such a law when he found out that the law did not recognize his child as a person and therefore the person who killed them would only be charged with one count of reckless homocide. The first person to be charged under the new law was a woman who killed another woman’s baby in a road rage accident.
Basically the law protects fetuses from assault on their person except in the case of abortion.
Re NOW’s position: Talk about slippery slopes. The people who would benefit the most from fetal protection laws are pregnant women. To have NOW take such a stance seems contrary to their mission statement. If you want to empower women to have the unequivocal right to END their pregnancy, surely you should also empower them with the unequivocal right to continue their pregnancy through birth.
I don’t think the fact that a fetus is “wanted” or not has any legal bearing on whether it is legally a person that can be murdered.
For the record, I would support laws that make assault or murder of a pregnant woman punished more harshly than normal. But the key factor is that the WOMAN is the one protected by those laws, and not the fetus.
Where the heck is Morris County? New Jersey? That’s a bit far from Modesto, CA . . .
But anyway, here are some applicable CA Penal Codes:
and . . .
The code does explicitly exempt “Therapuetic Abortions”. Quoting from the article linked by the OP:
I would agree with what Astro inferred; perhaps she should have ruminated further and not chosen this case to publicize that position.
I agree with Blalron. It seems clear that allowing a double-murder charge to be prosecuted against the murderer of a woman who’s 8 months pregnant establishes a juicy precedent for the anti-abortion lobby (on preview: maybe not that clear, if the laws currently on the books are more complex than I assumed, which of course they pretty much always are. Thanks for the actual info, El Gui).
However, it also seems pretty clear that murdering a woman who’s 8 months pregnant is somehow ‘worse’ than murdering one who’s not.
I dunno. It’s something I hadn’t thought about before, personally. It’s a very confusing issue for me, morally.
Bingo!
It should not be necessary. As I mentioned in my previous post, there should be more than sufficient triggers for special circumstances in this case. The DA has already indicated that the state will pursue capital murder charges against him.
Incidentally, Peterson was apprehended 30 miles from the Mexican border with $10,000.[sup]00[/sup] in cash. There are also unconfirmed reports that Scott was carrying his brother’s identification. All of this lends more credence to a consistent pattern of dissembling upon the defendant’s part.
I’m headed for Great Debates to start a Fetal Murder thread so that this vital topic can be discussed in depth. This is a critical juncture in the ongoing Roe vs Wade dispute. Here is a link.
There’s a vast difference between “innocent” and “not guilty”. Given that the civil trial found OJ liable for the deaths, I’d think there’s still some doubt.
I forget the exact wording, but Mr. Peterson was behaving as though he were a flight risk. Fleeing is generally held to be “evidence of consciousness of guilt.” (Lawyers, feel free to correct and/or expound on this.)
Robin
Of course, fleeing is not necessarily “evidence of consciousness of guilt.” If you are in fact innocent but feel you will be convicted despite your innocence, you might still flee.
Okay, let’s change the facts a bit. SP was having an affair and didn’t want to be married anymore. He could divorce Laci, but he’d STILL have to pay 18 years of child support. So he decides to divorce her and then takes a baseball bat and whacks her in the stomach a few times. The fetus dies.
Without fetal protection laws, the only crime he could be charged with is assault upon Laci. The most he’d serve is a few months in jail. Yet, he caused the death of their nearly full-term baby. To deem that her child should enjoy NO legal protection simply because he hadn’t been delivered yet is completely unjust.