It triggers the death penalty statute. I’m pro-choice and anti-death penalty but it seems like you’re stretching to find an agenda here. I’d be interested in seeing something that indicates the DA has some secret pro-life agenda.
As far as I know, no announcement has been made about whether they’ll seek the death penalty. But if they do, it’s very logical for the DA to choose the stronges reason available for seeking the death penalty and that happens to be the fetal protection statute.
Whether you agree with the statute or not, it doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to explain why the DA would choose this particular statute.
What are the other special circumstances? I’m no expert in CA criminal law, but the double-murder exception seems to be the strongest available.
Yeah, I don’t see any circumstances for death penalty besides double-murder. I always learned that multiple murders, kidnapping, murder of gov’t official, and maybe one or two others were the qualifiers. The only one I see is double murder.
You’re sidestepping the issue. He DID kill Laci. The fetal murder is a moot point, in terms of getting him put away ("Him’ being whoever killed Laci – Scott is charged, not found guilty just yet.) There will probably come a case that will test your theory of legal murder, but this is not the one.
I see a lot of expectant moms in jeopardy of negligent homicide charges if you start letting fetal murder cases be tried. It would just be a matter of time.
I was under the impression that all it took was one murder to trigger the death penalty in most states. Calif. might be an exception, in which case the double murder charge would make sense.
I just have to wonder why one person’s life is not all that important but two of them are.
BINGO!!
According to news reports yesterday, this is why they are going for a double conviction - death penalty is automatic in cases of 2 or more murders.
A single murder, under certain circumstances, can trigger the death penalty. But, from what I know, none of the circumstances are met or will be difficult to prove. On the other hand, the death of the fetus will not be difficult to prove at all so that’s why the DA is using it.
I’m no expert on California law, but I am willing to bet large sums of money that the death penalty is NOT automatic, regardless of how many murders are charged.
It may be AVAILABLE when there are multiple murders, and unavailable for a single murder. But not automatic.
Maybe it’s just me but I’ve always felt that life in prison was a harsher punishment than death. I’d rather see the guy have to think about this behind bars for another 60 years or so. Death just seems too easy an escape.
Having said that…
As far as the special circumstances go, I would rather see the act of killing a pregnant woman become a special circumstance for the death penalty. That way the same purpose is served without opening the can of worms that calling this a double murder will.
I’m with everyone who sees a “slippery slope”. I am strongly pro-choice and I get the sense that abortion rights are under fire in the US. The Xian right are a strong voice.
However, there must be a way to legally recognize that the deliberate murder of a fetus whose mother obviously intended to carry to term is a wrongful act.
Laci is among a number of women who very obviously had made a choice to become mothers. Once a woman has made that choice, Roe v. Wade becomes irrelevant.
“California law permits a murder charge for a fetus if a pregnant woman is slain, even if the fetus is not viable, said Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for the state attorney general. The law has been on the books for about 30 years.”
Pro-life here. Hope I don’t get hosed just for saying that. To respond to the OP, I doubt this move by NOW is designed to “win the hearts and minds of the people”, but I can definitely see why they feel the need to do this. As has already been pointed out, if the courts decide that a)it’s possible to “kill” a fetus and b)it is illegal to do so, then it’s a fairly short path to questioning the legality of abortion in the first place.
I’m pro-choice, and I would feel that the choice to carry or not carry the fetus belongs to the mother alone. I think it could stand and not jeopardize abortion rights because for all we know, Laci wanted to have the baby.
I’m more concerned with a fair trial taking place. I think it’s going to be damned near impossible to find an impartial jury, and I’m personally bothered by all the “let him fry” rhetorical I hear from some people in the face of so far (correct me if I’m wrong) circumstantial evidence. There’s a big difference between “he probably killed her” and “beyond a reasonable doubt, he killed her”. Can we please spare the venom until after the trial is over?
I advocate that when a fetus is killed in the commission of an assault or murder there should be automatic felony mayhem charges brought. This should permit the finding of special circumstances without according legal rights to the unborn.
Sorry Elwood, but its a free country and since I’m not on any jury, I’m entitled to hold whatever opinion I wish of Scott Peterson. The guy comes across like a complete slime ball and has done everything short of confess to implicate himself.
I will post a clarification about his aprehension. The golf course he was arrested near is actually farther North than where he lives in San Diego. He may not have been in flight at the time of his apprehension.
I’m fine with that position, Zenster, but do you see that charging Scott Peterson for killing the fetus is not necessarily part of a vast pro-life agenda on the DA’s part?