Peterson verdict today

The Peterson verdict will be announced today at approximately 4 p.m. EST.

Indications are he will get off.

 

This just in...

Laci Peterson: guilty of 1st degree murder
Unborn son: guilty of 2nd degree murder

 

I would be intrigued to hear what the lawyers amongst us have to say about being convicted of murdering a fetus. Can you really do that? Is this a tacit way of declaring that a fetus is a person with rights?

And very specifically, can a woman who is pregnant with twins now use the 3-passengers-only toll-free lane on the Golden Gate Bridge? (serious question)

 

So much for the legal eagles on Court TV, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News!

Most all felt he would get off because of the way things have been going for the past few weeks.

I have been wondering about this for years. We cannot have it both ways. Either a fetus is a human being or it is not.

Personally, I believe life begins at conception.

 

Jimmy: Personally, I believe life begins at conception.

John: Would not a woman who had a spontaneous miscarriage thus be liable for an involuntary manslaughter charge?

 

Good question and not being a medical ethicist or a legal scholar, I cannot answer this. I would guess, however, that it all depends on what created the miscarriage.

I know mothers can be charged with child endangerment if they are using cocaine and other illegal drugs.

 

Hi John - It seems a bit unlike you to be a provocateur but, frankly, it's good to see. As to your question, the idea of linking an involuntary manslaughter charge to a spontaneous miscarriage is interesting. You no doubt understand that in the area of philosophy, basic principles are won or lost on extreme cases. The one you've cited is a good example. The answer (no mystery) is "it's contingent." If the premise is that life begins at conception, and if it can be shown that a woman knowingly and willfully behaved in a manner that led directly to the miscarriage then I suppose that charges could be brought. Obviously, our society is a long way from this point. As to your question about the woman pregnant with twins in the 3-passenger lane, etc. I'd say that in some possible worlds she might need to carry an affidavit of her pregnancy (with twins) next to her drivers license.
Isn't Philosophy great?!
Jack

 

I side with Jimmy (life begins at conception), but that said, let's assume for a moment that it does not begin there. Where does it begin? End of the 1st trimester? The 2nd or 3rd trimester? At birth? As one having seen drawings of, and having read written accounts of a 2nd trimester partial birth abortion, I would ABSOLUTELY say the child was alive before the abortion. I'm curious as to other views.

Pug

 

Perhaps the best way to address this question is to simply ask, especially to the pro-choice folks, if you're pregnant wife were murdered would you believe you lost only a wife or a wife and a child?

I suspect most husbands would feel it was a double loss.

 

As most of you know, I predicted in this thread that it would be a guilty verdict... but I so predicted only after first believing that it would be a hung jury. My prediction changed to "guilty" after the judge gave the jury the option of 2nd degree murder. Personally, I thought the verdict would be 2nd degree murder all around.

And, for the record, I also predicted that said verdict would come in by late last Tuesday... and had not one, but two, jurors been dismissed at that time, I believe that would still have been the case... that is, if how long it finally took them to decide once the MD/JD foreman (who, apparently, had been slowing things down by his carefulness) was dismissed is any indication.

I am surprised, to be candid, by how quickly what was effectively a third jury (once the third alternate had joined it) came to a decision. I am a little surprised that both first degree murder and special circumstances were decided. Peterson, therefore, will likely get the death penalty.

And I'll say this, categorically: While I have said, all along, that I felt Peterson probably did it, I am nevertheless troubled by the fact that our system can put to death a person convincted on such a weak and circumstantial case.

Absolutely.

California code does, indeed, draw a distinction between a "fetus" and a "human being;" but for purposes of the State's murder statute they are essentially equal classes of potential homicide victims.

So do I... but viability should be a potent factor in the matter of whether or not a woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to terminate said life (or not, if that's what she chooses). I believe in a woman't right to choose, unconditionally, for as long as the fetus is not viable. The law, however, is consistent with that viewpoint only to the end of the first trimester. After that there are lots of conditions.

Good eye, Jimmy. The categorical answer to John's question is "no," but with footnotes; and you have stumbled squarely onto said footnotes. Click here for a page that attempts to address them.

Well, of course, there's the rub, isn't it? And such tacitity (I don't think that's a word) is precisely the means by which pro-lifers are chipping-away at a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... but you already knew that, didn't you?

Ah... yes... a question airmed straight at the heart of the logical disconnects in the pro-life argument... but then you knew that, too. Personally, I think it depends on whether everyone on board occupies his/her own seat.

For at least one relevant and cogent explanation of where California law is on the complex matter of fetus vs human being, click here.

• FOR THOSE INTERESTED: At the time the above-linked-to article was written, oral arguments in the Taylor case had been completed, but the Supreme Court had not yet ruled. In April 2004 the Court ruled, in effect, that a defendant who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with murdering the fetus even if he didn't know she was pregnant. Stating that it was mindful of the fact that California law has adequate provisions which include an unborn fetus in the sections covering homicide, the Court found that the act of shooting Fansler showed a disregard for all human life in the apartment, even though he was specifically only targeting Fansler.

Hmm. Isn't it interesting how two people can watch the same coverage and come away with such differing interpretations... at least in the case of Court TV and the FOX NEWS CHANNEL. If ever I witnessed a more anti-Scott-Peterson crowd, it was on those two networks; where, whenever I did have the time to watch a little, I heard far more conviction prediction than the alternative.

Absolutely, yes. But not viable outside the womb. And that distinction, where abortion is concerned, should, as I stated above, play a very heavy role. But, of course, the further past the first trimester a pregnancy gets, the more like out-and-out murder it starts to feel... even to right-to-choosers. That having been said, it is nevertheless right for a woman to have THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE -- at least to the end of the first trimester. That should never change, in my opinion. And that having been said, I believe if my significant other became pregnant I would not want her to terminate it; and I would at least ask her to let me make my case against it were she of a mind to. But as a matter of law and civil rights, were she determined to do it, I would not stand in her way. Though it be our child, it's nevertheless her body, not mine. Her RIGHT TO CHOOSE is and remains the law of the land... and may it always be so.

That position of mine being what it is; and Laci Peterson's mother having gotten four-square behind last year's federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (which, because of her participation, was dubbed "Laci and Conner's Law"), one can easily see yet another reason why my getting along with Laci's family, generally, just wasn't meant to be; and why they see me as more foe than friend... despite my $15,000 in-kind donation to their cause (of finding Laci when she was missing).

Of course! Or, certainly any of them who are realistic would. But, again, it depends... and to some degree, the law sees it that way, too. If the child is wanted, there is no question that both the parents and the law would see it as two lives lost. If it were not wanted; and if it were before the end of the first trimester, then it might not be so clear.

Part of what's reflected in Jimmy's approach to all this, here, is the typical pro-lifer need to make the case by attacking the shaky pro-choice propositions borne out of the inherently logical disconnectes that naturally attend the argument. Had the pro-choice crowd (of which I consider myself a member) not been so worried in the first place about such logical disconnects; had it just called abortion what it is, and been unapologetic about it, instead of trying to confuse the notions of life versus viability; had it just acknowledged that it's the unquestionable termination of a human life -- but a not viable one, and for far more practical reasons that far outweigh that little fact -- way back when the argument first started, today we would be arguing the practical issues related to abortion instead of the ethereal ones. Had the pro-choice crowd taken battle to the pro-lifers, and confined its arguments to the purely practical matters of it, way back in the beginning, this issue would have been settled a long time ago.

Indeed... and second only to Theology in its ability to get one in trouble...

...or at least so it is the case with me and Bill Grover (who never hesitates to tell people around here that I give bad theses).

 

I was down at the San Mateo County Courthouse in Redwood City today (I used to work there) and all I can say is... whatta zoo!

Kinda like sharks, when there's blood in the water.

There's a couple of blocks of Middlefield Road closed to traffic and filled with nothing but dozens of satellite trucks. The plaza in front of the courthouse is filled with tents, each one kind of a little TV studio, with lights and cameras.

Three news choppers clattered overhead, accompanied by a fixed wing light plane.

There was kind of Potemkin Village aspect to it.

You could watch the reporters and commentators in front of the cameras, dressed in expensive tailored suits, with not a hair out of place and with inhumanly perfect complexions. And everywhere outside the camera's field of view, technicians in levis and pony tails and baseball caps, piles of cameras and lights and junk, and cables strung everywhere like spaghetti.

It really kind of brought it home that what the networks put out is a carefully constructed image, not the reality of the scene.

And the real irony is that there were probably more reporters there at what was, in reality, a meaningless non-event created by the media themselves, than at the battle of Fallujah.

 

A sign of the times. Put a tv camera in public, and before long people start gathering like moths to a flame. Each one has a cell phone, presumably on the line with someone at home with the tv on. "Look at me. Look at me. Do you see me. Do I look cool? It's incredible. I'm on tv"

Yikes, you'd think people could find better things to do. Take a class by DL, perhaps?

 

A California jury gets it right. Wow.

Nothing would please me more than to see him get put-down, but another part of me would like to see him live out his life in a prison population that pays "special attention" to baby-killers.

 

It's pretty shocking they went for 1st degree murder with special circumstances for Laci and 2nd degree murder for the soon-to-have-been-born Conner. I thought the jury might go for 2nd degree murder for both since exact cause of death was never determined and direct evidence was scarce. I think the jury absolutely made the right decision, it just seemed that hoping for that was hoping for more than was likely to be delivered.

Even though much of the evidence was circumstantial if each item was considered separately, when added all together it paints an undeniably sinister and damning picture. Even some of the individual points seemed 'fishy' though, such as you don't fish for sturgeon in a smallish boat with a regular fishing pole. Also the chilling revelation that he told his unsuspecting mistress he was a widower facing his first Christmas without his wife, but said that before Laci was even missing. My biggest concern was the worst-case scenario that he might just walk completely.

Kit

 

<<... but viability should be a potent factor in the matter of whether or not a woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to terminate said life (or not, if that's what she chooses). I believe in a woman't right to choose, unconditionally, for as long as the fetus is not viable. The law, however, is consistent with that viewpoint only to the end of the first trimester. After that there are lots of conditions.>>

So let's assume we have a woman who has CHOSEN to keep her unborn child. She's excited about it, she's planning for it, she's taking all of her pre-natal vitimans, etc. Her husband is NOT excited about it at all, so much so that he beats her, causing her to miscarry. Are you suggesting that this man is only guilty of assaulting her (and no other crime) because her unborn child may not yet be able to live outside of the womb???? I respectfully disagree. If a woman has a right to choose, she most certainly has the right to choose LIFE. If she chooses LIFE, rather than abortion, and someone then takes that life from her, he is most certainly guilty of taking that life.


Pug

 

===

No, I tell that only in proper context, as there, in your TRACS vs. RA/ATS comment,

but anyway, I wuz jus teasin

 

It is not surprising, that these three areas (Philosophy, Theology and Law) are so adverserial. After all, they are the three biggest contributors to the "rules of life." I've appreciated your contributions and found them to be pretty even-handed despite your personal opinions. As for me, my goal is to continue to try to disagree without being disagreeable. I've made gains but am afraid that there's much more to be done in that area. In that regard, I'd be interested in having you say something further about the concept of "viability" as you reference it toward the end of your last post. My guess is that this has been fairly tightly defined in the legal arena but I'm not aware of the criteria. Thanks,
Jack

 

Actually, there was surprisingly little of that. The crowd of onlookers was relatively small, probably because nobody expected a verdict to come in on Friday. (Even defense attorney Mark Garagos was down in LA.)

I don't blame the crowd. I was one of them. After I had completed my business I stood there and stared. I have no apologies, the scene was simply extraordinary.

But what was most extraordinary about the scene was precisely what was most extraordinary about it.

I wasn't the Peterson trial. Hundreds of murders have been committed since Scott committed his. Many of those murders were more exotic and/or involved more interesting legal principles.

What was so extraordinary about the scene was the media frenzy. In a sense, the press invented the whole thing. They whipped it up, they shoved it in everyone's faces, they got everyone talking about it. It was supermarket tabloid journalism on steroids, celebrity existing simply for celebrity's sake.

I mean, the reporters and their countless hangers-on literally outnumbered the crowd.

When you add in the dozens of huge satellite trucks, the microwave antennas, the portable generators, the electrical lines, the tents, the make-up people, the cameras and lights, the press credentials, the caterers, the street blockages, the helicopters...

There was an important news story there all right, but the networks all totally missed it.

They should have turned their cameras around on themselves. Because they were the story.

 

Regarding John's question about the bridge and a pregnant woman, a judge ruled that pregnant woman and her fetus did not allow her to use the carpool lane. The argument was that the law was passed to encourage carpooling and thereby reducing traffic. So the law does not have to be consistent when it is being pragmatic.

 

The subject that will never die.

Absolutely not. I am suggesting no such horrific thing; and I apologize for not making more clear what I was suggesting.

Indeed, he is. No argument here. I fear you may not have read, in its totality, all that I presented earlier in this thread -- including the article to which I linked, as well. If the woman chooses life and then her husband beats her to the point that she miscarries, it is clear to a moral certainty that he has taken a life. Where it startes to get complicated is when one contemplates what the legal consequences of that terrible act should be. The State of California has weighed-in on the matter (see earlier linked-to article), but compelling -- or at least interesting -- arguments (and, mind you, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with them) can be made for a difference in legal consequences based on the fetus's viability at the time of the incident. But all of that is sort of moot, in this particular case, because when I wrote, earlier, about viability being a potent factor, I meant with regard to a woman's right to choose, not an egregeous act of violence by her husband.

I know. So was I.

Wow. Coming from you, that's... well... I mean... gosh... thanks... I'm serious.

Yes, well, that's the goal, isn't it... for all of us, I mean? I've failed miserably on numerous occasions here... of which I'm thoroughly not proud, incidentally. But it's a nice sentiment, isn't it? Disagreeing, without being disagreeable. I love that. Maybe those of us who value it and aspire thereto should all add it to our signature lines, eh? Hey, Janko... how would "To disagree without being disagreeable is next to Godliness" translate into Latin so I can make it the third line of mine?

Oh, oh. I feel a can-o-worms about to be opened, here. Plus, I ask rhetorically, just how far afield from this thread's original subject should we probably be permitting ourselves to stray? That having been asked (and now about to be ignored); and notwithstanding the fact that we will, if not careful, soon be ankle-deep in worms; let me, nevertheless, see if I can make myself clearer (while simultaneously painting a big target on my own back)...

I've always felt that a first trimester abortion cut off was a mere contrivance; and one that flew in the face of nature's own cut off point of roughly 26 weeks. Any fetus delivered prior to 26 weeks has very little chace -- almost no chance, in fact -- of survival (or at least quality survival), even when extraordinary measures are taken to keep it alive. That being the case, one could argue that a woman should have the right to choose right up to the 26th week (or thereabouts). Were this something that any legislature were actually considering, I'd argue for no later than the 24th week... just to play it safe(r). Of course, even pro-choicers -- including myself -- are fairly repulsed by the notion of that once they realize just how far along a 24-week-old fetus really is, and how much more like out-and-out "murder" the termination of said fetus starts to actually feel. That, in largest measure, is why legislators have imposed a first trimester cut off in various states' abortion-related legislation. And that's probably a good thing. We all live with deadlines in our lives, and it's probably not too much to ask of a woman that if she is going to exercise her right to choose, she needs to do it before the first trimester deadline (barring, of course, other medical necessity which may arise after the end of the first trimester, as diagnosed and assessed by a physician, and pursuant to his/her advice and counsel).

It's okay for people of conscience to be divided over this thorny issue. It's a very tough issue that requires a lot of thoughtful prayer and compassionate consideration; and one that I hope never to have to make, or to witness anyone about whom I care having to make. There is arguably no more vulnerable a living human entity than a human fetus. That's, in part, why the world is so repulsed by the Scott Petersons who live in it. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves; and leaving to God the decision of who lives and who dies, is a more or less universal human sentiment... about which we, as humans, should be justly proud.

There are practical considerations, however, which must take precedence... and we all know what they are. Let's start with (but, please, not belabor) overpopulation. I've lived long enough to see, to my astonishment, a more-than-doubling in global population... and I'm not even that old! So, at the current global population growth rate of 73 million people per year -- an annual rate equivalent to nearly one third of the number of people now living in the United States alone -- precisely where is everyone going to live fifty or a hundred years from now? Hmm?

And even if everyone can find a spot, what happens to our open spaces; and to our planet's ability to keep-up with the food and health requirements... and the waste production? Should we decimate our quality of life by then just so the pro-lifers can feel good about our society's compliance with their interpretation of scripture or, on a more fundamental level, their simple sense of right and wrong? Is there anyone, upon being fully advised in the premises, and who has the courage to see things as they are and not how they wish it could be, who would not agree that we must bravely do what has to be done?

Are there any among us who would not rejoice if there were a way for every pregnancy to result in a beautiful baby being born into a loving family? But that's just not how it is. It's a sad and painful fact that some babies should just not be brought into this world... for their own sakes, if none other! Unwanted babies often have horrible, ne, horrific, lives -- lives for which they, themselves, might not have opted had there somehow been a way for them to have had a say in the matter. The long lines of those wishing to adopt are simply not absorbing all the unwanted babies... for manifold reasons too numerous and contentious to go into here. But in its undeniable light, is it not valid for the pro-choice community to issue the time-worn challenge to the pro-life community that those lilly-white, middle-class, holier-than-thou types who scream the loudest against a woman's right to choose should be compelled to be at the front of the line to adopt all the crack babies, babies of color, and all the other babies born to unwanting mothers; and which end-up not adopted, but in eternal foster care... or worse?

But even if they were all both adoptable and adopted, doesn't the mother, who must change and potentially endanger her very life by carrying the child, get a say in whether society gets to use her body as some sort of baby-producing vessel? It's her body, after all, not some pro-lifer's. If the pro-lifer wants to bring a baby into the world, then let him or her use his/her own damned body! Who does the society which pro-lifers envision think it is to dictate to any woman how her body should be used? What, are we pod people or something? Geez!

It's not like there's no precedent for the notion of terminating a human life for society's greater good. After all, we have capital punishment, do we not? And, logical disconnect of logical disconnects, most pro-lifers strongly believe in it, to boot... thereby begging the complex question: Now that we have life without the possibility of parole so that there is no chance of someone whom we might otherwise have executed ever committing his/her crimes again; and, in light thereof, since executing someone then amounts to little more than societal retribution (which, additionally, statistics show has no deterrant value whatsoever); then is it not a more decent, honorable and loving thing to direct our penchant for the termination of human life to those not yet lived which, because they are thoroughly unwanted in the first place, will likely be miserable or worse?

If so, as a purely practical matter, should not the "when" of it be guided, in large measure, by the notion of natural fetal viability?

[sigh]

You know... I hate this subject. I really do.