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?

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 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. :sosad:

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.
:cool:

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). 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.

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. 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.

Sir Belisarius' legal comments are well taken. It's sort of splitting hairs to say "well, he killed the mother, but he didn't kill the baby. That happened as a result of the mother dying." What nonsense. Arguments about the viability of the fetus notwithstanding, he must have known that if he killed the mother it would kill the fetus / baby too.

I'm pretty sure also that abortions are not permitted in most jurisdictions at the 8 month mark, right? So the involvement of the pro-life / pro choice crowd, while understandable, seems a little bit moot to me.

Going back to whether or not he knew that is actions were going to cause the death of the baby, I'll use an analogy -- if I cut the brakes on someone's car, and he dies in a fiery crash, I can't say "all I did was cut the brakes; I didn't know it would kill him!"

Well, maybe if I have a good enough lawyer I could use that as a defense :evil: , but it still makes no rational sense to me. I say forget the arguments on whether the fetus was a person or not and convict him on murder one for the mom and manslaughter on the baby -- with any luck, he spends the rest of his life in jail, with a big, lonely, non-KY jelly using cellmate.

Ah, I get it now. It's because of case law. If this case has a certain legal outcome, then this is a new precedent which may be applied to a whole different issue. And in this way be abused to incriminate people who actually legally abort a child and not murder anyone.

Anglo-Saxon Law is weird. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Side comment: Disagreed. Anglo-Saxon law is not that bad. Apart from that it's good to realise it's not all about customs, precedents etc - in fact common here means 'common to all', 'universal' rather than 'custom law' or a rule of tradition (contrary to once numerous particular local laws). Common law has evolved from the law used by royal courts in England - the law of Norman kings, royal justice (or laws of the kingdom for protoroundheads ;) ). So it's origins aren't so much far from other European laws - it's only the judicial practice that makes the difference. Well, it's indeed all about judicial practice - in my humble opinion much better than politicians messing things up every few years.

In Polish system for example it would be nearly impossible to charge the guy with two murders in this case and completely impossible for that charge to succeed. Which sucks.

I believe the influence of Roman Law makes some systems view the foetus as a part of woman's body until separated therefore not legally existing until then (nasciturus concept excepted). Hence one murder.

[ April 24, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: chevalier ]

No, No, No, No Chevalier.

I spoke of Anglo-Saxon Law which is weird. But you're right, in Commonwealth countries and in the UK, it works pretty well,

Our Continental law is actually named "common" law too, but we don't use this name anymore. Because we delevoped it in a different way. And it's not only the judical practice that makes the difference, they missed the whole 19th enlightment stuff. That's why they got a death penalty and don't even have minimal rights for children. They put 8-year olds into jail.

Concerning Lawmaking-process: Instead of politicians, they got a mix between judges,politicans and jurors messing things up. It makes a joke out of the reasoning from case to case system, when every pressure group tries to get a gain from any court rouling. That's thrice as bad.

Yes, I am aware that you're a catholic.

In Polish system for example it would be nearly impossible to charge the guy with two murders in this case and completely impossible for that charge to succeed. Which sucks.
If you have this opinion, then change the law in your country. :)

believe the influence of Roman Law makes some systems view the foetus as a part of woman's body until separated therefore not legally existing until then (nasciturus concept excepted). Hence one murder.
That's partly correct, partly not. Roman law states, that an unborn child shall be treated as born, if it's born. That's the point on which Belisarius viability is based on. Roman law on the other hand say's nothing about abortion, because making abortion illegal, has only begun in the mid of the 19th to become a trend. Besides, nor does old common law from the middle-ages on till 18th. They saw it in the same way.

[ April 24, 2003, 09:22: Message edited by: Yago ]

Damn, I've just lost the whole reply. No, I'm not going to re-write it in full, so don't fear...

I'll be brief:

Primo nasciturus is about the property rights of the potential subject. In fact it's nothing to do with the foetus. Though there's no obstacle to extend protection from property to other rights. (But other than that you just agree with me though with an opposite intention ;) )

Secundo in Roman law nothing is a separate item that's not yet been separated from the main item even if that is to happen soon and in normal course of events. This is seen in every aspect of Roman law - and thus in the blurry and indirect ways of history it influences continental European laws up to this day. That's why I doubt any continental European court would send the guy to his rightful place in gaol for two murders but only for one (although he'd get a few bonus years).

Tertio yes, I'm going to do everything possible to change this sorry sick abomination known as law here. If only I have the possibility that is. Hah, if I finally prove myself to be no good at anything I'll become a politician. :D

Quarto parliament's bill is supreme source of law in common law but apart from law that is not in touch with justice served in courts it only really affects penal law (US), copyrights and several politics-related things AFAIK.

Quinto common law in continental countries is much more like customs that aren't meaningless even in court's judiciation though it's nothing offical. As I have already said, Anglo-Saxon common law is not really that way.

Sexto what does that 'Yes, I'm aware that you're a Catholic' mean? I can't see what you could be referring to.

[ April 24, 2003, 14:10: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Sexto what does that 'Yes, I'm aware that you're a Catholic' mean? I can't see what you could be referring to Nothing actually, except that I meant, yes I know that you're against legalizing abortion and I think that you perceive a foetus as living after insemination. Which is a plausible view and i did not intend other things with the word. ;)

Secundo in Roman law nothing is a separate item that's not yet been separated from the main item even if that is to happen soon and in normal course of events. This is seen in every aspect of Roman law - and thus in the blurry and indirect ways of history it influences continental European laws up to this day. That's why I doubt any continental European court would send the guy to his rightful place in gaol for two murders but only for one (although he'd get a few bonus years).
Wich obviously shaped my mind too and I'm quite happy with the state of things.

Quinto common law in continental countries is much more like customs that aren't meaningless even in court's judiciation though it's nothing offical. As I have already said, Anglo-Saxon common law is not really that way.
Yes, but our civil-codes have been developed and still include common-law rules. But the "separation" between anglo-saxon common law and contiental common law began way earlier. But both base on the mediaeval common law, mainly developed in northern-italy.


Primo nasciturus is about the property rights of the potential subject. In fact it's nothing to do with the foetus. Though there's no obstacle to extend protection from property to other rights. (But other than that you just agree with me though with an opposite intention 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.
Belisarius is exactly using the roman rule concerning the "civil" (continental) rights of an unborn -> That is, What is the percentage chance of the fetus living outside the womb in an incubator -> Primo nasciturus is about the property rights of the potential subject. If the child would have lived outside the womb = potential subject.

There's no obstacle to extend protection from property to other rights -> Americans obviously did it.

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 Thats weird about their law -> Politicans, pressure groups, common Law, Judges, Juries, interpretation of the constitution -> mixed to an awfull mess -> Being against a ban of ASSAULT weapons, because they could take away my weapon for hunting.

[ April 24, 2003, 15:47: Message edited by: Yago ]

Whoa. Whoa. Wait a minute. No where did Darkwolf say anything about the baby dying because the mother was killed. You guys are assuming a lot, especially since the person with the motive was more than likely motivated to kill both of them. And if we're talking an 8 month old fetus.... An 8 month old fetus can live a long time outside of it's mothers' womb before requiring medical attention. And if it's left in the womb, it can last even longer. In fact, the very act of pulling the baby out of the womb could be considered as an attempt to kill it. When I was due to have my twins, they were *hoping* that I would go until 8 months before I had them.
I'm not going to get into the issue of whether the fetus was a child yet or not because... I think my opinion's a little jaded on the point. I was irreversibly bonded with my children when I was less than six months pregnant, and I can't imagine anyone saying that a baby in the womb at that age is not a baby. But if the father killed them, then he was attempting to kill them both, that much is fairly obvious.

Dragon's Jewel, I wasn't accusing Darkwolf if illogic, I just know that the argument can and will be made that while he may have intended to kill her, he either a)didn't mean for the infant to die (??) or b) didn't consider, as the law may not, what was in her belly at the time to be a human or a person.

I know how you feel about your kids, though. I have three little girls, and I love them to bits -- I have a hard time getting people who have no problem killing a baby in utero but 2 months later, killing that organism would be murder (yes, I know I'm oversimplifying, no need to flame, I fully recognize that the pro choice movement has a right to their opinions too, just saying that I don't relate to them.)

I just don't think that he should have only one charge of murder levied against him simply because HE didn't think that he was killing a human being. And someone who would kill their unborn child and then say that they were just trying to kill the mother..... Well, the person's half-cocked anyway. And I'd like to hear his motives for killing his wife; many times, in cases such as this, the mother is killed because the child is unwanted. So what happens then, when the murder is to get rid of the fetus before it becomes a child, so to speak? Such things happen more often than people would like to admit, I'm afraid.

Two Murders. The baby was past the 24 week 'can survive outside the womb' stage. So the killer killed the mother leading to the death of the unborn baby. If he/she hadn't killed the mother the baby wouldn't have died so it was a direct consequence of his/her actions. And you can't tell me they didn't know she was pregnant. It starts to show at around 4 months

If you really want to be true to the question, it depends on the laws in the U.S., or the state in the U.S. Someone mentioned that it depends on viablity. I don't really know.

Now, if the law says the child had to be born and it wasn't, I guess it's one count of murder. If he, for whatever insane reason, took the child out of the womb, making it a 'born' child, then I guess it would be two counts. If the law says that eight months is murder, then two counts.

Whatever it may be, it makes me sick and very angry that anyone could do that. :flaming:

The Cali murder statute. Notice in the statute fetus =!= human being. However, notice b(3). The statute is internally consistent, however, I think when you look at it in a wider context it isn't particularly consistent. When you ask: why are you defining murder that way? A better way of achieving the identical result is to make the killing of a fetus an aggravating factor which if the woman was killed would then allow the death penalty. Of course, that won't address the circumstance of attempted murder, assault, etc which results in the death of the fetus but not the mother. Anyways, without further ado:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.
c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

Yes, but our civil-codes have been developed and still include common-law rules. But the "separation" between anglo-saxon common law and contiental common law began way earlier. But both base on the mediaeval common law, mainly developed in northern-italy.Sorry, friend, but you are a bit confused. Anglo-Saxon common law didn't have to separate from the continental one. Simply what you view as continental common law is the law of customs - which is translated as common law, but using another meaning. However, local customs for France, Germany or Spain for example can't have developed in Northern Italy - that's where the concept begins to fall. Each of feudal countries had loads of special districts and different local traditions - including law and judication. Common law is 1) Law of all - like common language, contrary to elven, goble or draconic ;) 2) Local customs - contrary to the king's unified standards

What is called common law in Italy is received Roman Law - basically Roman law extended by interpretation, adjustment and analogy by the followers of Accursius or Bartolus de Saxoferrato (glossatores and postglossatores/commentatores). And it developed continously despite the fall of Western Empire, so mediaeval dates stand only for periodisation. The same role Roman law played in Germany, Roman Law being seen as the law of German Emperors as succeeding Western Rome (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation). Curiously it was used as auxilliary law until 1900 when BGB civil code was introduced in whole Germany (however BGB is the most Romanistic of all codes that be, so one could argue here ;) ).

As for the origins of Anglo-Saxon common law being different, I'm not going to repeat my posts from above.

Well, this being said I believe it's time to stop or open another thread or we'll have some local law applied to us ;)

Well, this being said I believe it's time to stop or open another thread or we'll have some local law applied to us Let's hope the master is forgiving once more

What is called common law in Italy is received Roman Law - basically Roman law extended by interpretation, adjustment and analogy by the followers of Accursius or Bartolus de Saxoferrato (glossatores and postglossatores/commentatores). And it developed continously despite the fall of Western Empire, so mediaeval dates stand only for periodisation. The same role Roman law played in Germany, Roman Law being seen as the law of German Emperors as succeeding Western Rome (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation). Curiously it was used as auxilliary law until 1900 when BGB civil code was introduced in whole Germany (however BGB is the most Romanistic of all codes that be, so one could argue here ).
Yes, and that's called common law "das gemeine Recht". And this influenced heavely the common law of England. Because the English used (like all other Eurpeans) to study in Northern-Italy too. And the Ausrian (= the former law of parts of Poland) law-book is still called "common-law". -> ABGB -> Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch -> (All)gemeines = common law.

What you call "the law of customs" would be the "Partikulares Recht" = Law of local traditions/customs.

Sidenote: Even the character that Mel Gibson plays in "Braveheart" claims to have been in Italy, where he has learnt latin.

ABGB has been in use since 1811, hehe. And it still serves well. It's not as hallowed as Code Napoleon or even the German BGB however.

Gemeines recht is just Roman law with several additions introduced by German Emperors (1st Reich, until 1806) and it's own judicial practice. Common because used as auxiliary in all those hundreds of tiny little countries.

As for Italian law influencing Anglo-Saxon Common Law... Not much of that. Of course Italian jurisprudence has major unique penal procedure acheviements that have influenced all legal systems in touch, but still Brits didn't have to leave their cozy island to learn Roman law... And well, until 18/19th century Roman law was the only law taught in British universities - that's why many lawyers didn't have education on university level - just practicing in inns as applicants.