News Scott Peterson Trial: Is He Guilty?

[misskitty]

Do you think Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn son? Do you think he should get the death penalty?

Let me know what you think and why.

 

[loseyourname]

The justice system generally gets it right. I would imagine he's guilty. I still don't understand how you can "murder" an unborn child that isn't supposed to legally be a person with rights, but whatever.

 

[Kerrie]

well, i guess if your wife was expecting a child that you both wanted and planned and then someone took that from you, you may feel different. i am glad he was charged with murder for both, as Sharon Rocha (her mother said), she wanted to be a mother and Scott took that from her.

as an expecting mother myself, i would hope anyone that took my child from me without consent would also be charged with murder.

 

[Kerrie]

to answer your question misskitty, i think without a doubt he's guilty. the fact that he didn't admit to anything probably sealed his fate even worse because it shows no remorse on his part yet all of the clues point to him.

 

[misskitty]

I would certainly hope they would be charged with murder.

 

[loseyourname]

well, i guess if your wife was expecting a child that you both wanted and planned and then someone took that from you, you may feel different.

I don't recall indicating that I felt anything about this.

i am glad he was charged with murder for both, as Sharon Rocha (her mother said), she wanted to be a mother and Scott took that from her.

as an expecting mother myself, i would hope anyone that took my child from me without consent would also be charged with murder.

I'd want the person to be punished, but my desires don't determine the law, nor should they, and the law contradicts itself. For the killing of an organism to be considered murder, that organism must be considered a person - that and intent define the killing as murder. If a fetus can be murdered, then the law is considering it to be a person. Any organism that is considered legally to be a person has the right, given by the government, to not be killed, except in self-defense or if it is guilty of a capital crime. That should apply in any case. If the fetus isn't a person when the doctor kills it, then it isn't a person when Scott Peterson kills it - no matter how satisfied you and Sharon are that he was convicted of double murder (his punishment would have been the same, by the way, had he only been convicted of one murder).

 

[misskitty]

If the fetus isn't a person when the doctor kills it, then it isn't a person when Scott Peterson kills it - no matter how satisfied you and Sharon are that he was convicted of double murder (his punishment would have been the same, by the way, had he only been convicted of one murder).

If a fetus isn't a human being like you or I, then what is it?

The authorities were right to charge Scott with double murder. You don't know that the outcome and final sentence of the trial would have had the same outcome. That's spectulation and there is no way to know how the trial would have ended. We can make educated guesses, but we can not make that statement with 100% certainty.

 

[Kerrie]

I don't recall indicating that I felt anything about this.



I'd want the person to be punished, but my desires don't determine the law, nor should they, and the law contradicts itself. For the killing of an organism to be considered murder, that organism must be considered a person - that and intent define the killing as murder. If a fetus can be murdered, then the law is considering it to be a person. Any organism that is considered legally to be a person has the right, given by the government, to not be killed, except in self-defense or if it is guilty of a capital crime. That should apply in any case. If the fetus isn't a person when the doctor kills it, then it isn't a person when Scott Peterson kills it - no matter how satisfied you and Sharon are that he was convicted of double murder (his punishment would have been the same, by the way, had he only been convicted of one murder).

Notice I did use the word "if" and "may". You haven't experienced (obviously) the road of parenthood, thus your lack of this experience may have a big influence of what you think.

Scott Peterson was convicted of murder of the baby because the child was desired by the mother. A fetus that reaches 8 months term is very capable of living as a healthy human being, I know of a child born at barely 6 months term that a year later is now as healthy as she can be for her age. Our medical advances are having an influence on the law indirectly as I see it. Also, my state (Oregon) is trying to get "Kerry's law" into effect which elevates the charges if a violent act is committed against a woman and the attacker knows she is pregnant. Not necessarily a separate charge for the fetus, but a more harsh one.

In this instance, I am truly glad the judges are the ones interpreting the law and not just definitions of what murder is and is not.

 

[misskitty]

I think its wonderful they are starting to draft and pass laws like that. Judges are judges for a reason.

 

[loseyourname]

I think its wonderful they are starting to draft and pass laws like that. Judges are judges for a reason.

Judges don't draft laws, legislators do. It was the California state assembly that decided killing an unborn fetus is murder in this state, not the judge who oversaw the Peterson case.

Notice I did use the word "if" and "may". You haven't experienced (obviously) the road of parenthood, thus your lack of this experience may have a big influence of what you think.

It's rather condescending to suggest that I cannot think clearly about the issue of whether or not the killing of a fetus is murder because I have never parented a child.

Scott Peterson was convicted of murder of the baby because the child was desired by the mother. A fetus that reaches 8 months term is very capable of living as a healthy human being, I know of a child born at barely 6 months term that a year later is now as healthy as she can be for her age.

That's nice, but being desired by its mother isn't enough to confer personhood on a fetus. The fetus is simply not legally considered a person in this country - if it were, then abortion would be murder. It is considered to be an inert body part, a non-person mass of cells that, though human, does not yet have any rights. It is still just an appendage of the mother, which is why she is legally allowed to remove it at any time if she so desires. In being consistent, the best a person that kills a fetus should be charged with is mutilation.

You value retribution, I value consistency and non-contradiction. I think that laws should agree with each other, even if this agreement is not emotionally satisfying.

In this instance, I am truly glad the judges are the ones interpreting the law and not just definitions of what murder is and is not.

Again, judges don't make charges. The prosecutor brings forth charges, and the judge determines if the prosecutor can legally bring those charges. In the Peterson case, the prosecutor could bring the charge of murder against Peterson for the killing of Connor because, under California law, the killing of a fetus is considered to be murder.

If a fetus isn't a human being like you or I, then what is it?

The authorities were right to charge Scott with double murder. You don't know that the outcome and final sentence of the trial would have had the same outcome. That's spectulation and there is no way to know how the trial would have ended. We can make educated guesses, but we can not make that statement with 100% certainty.

Being human does not make you a person. Humanity is a biological concept, whereas personhood is a legal construct. Slaves were legally considered 3/5 of a person for many years and, at this point, fetuses are not considered to be persons at all, not even in fractions.

Scott would have been convicted on the strength of the evidence against him for the killing of Laci. That murder alone carries a possible death sentence with a minimum life sentence. Adding a second murder doesn't mean they can kill him twice. They could have sentenced him to multiple life sentences, but he's only going to live one life, so that wouldn't have made a difference. It could affect parole, but I would imagine in a case like this, no possibility of parole would have been granted anyway.

 

[misskitty]

Loseyourname, the first part of my earlier statement concerning the laws was directed at the legistlators. I know judges don't draft and pass laws, their job is merely to interpret and uphold those laws.

I would consider abortion murder. I can't see how a fetus isn't a person/human whatever you would like to call it. It's not like an arms or a leg. Its a tiny person that will grow and mature into a bigger person. How can you and I call ourselves people and not call a fetus/baby a person?

 

[loseyourname]

Loseyourname, the first part of my earlier statement concerning the laws was directed at the legistlators. I know judges don't draft and pass laws, their job is merely to interpret and uphold those laws.

I would consider abortion murder. I can't see how a fetus isn't a person/human whatever you would like to call it. It's not like an arms or a leg. Its a tiny person that will grow and mature into a bigger person. How can you and I call ourselves people and not call a fetus/baby a person?

I actually agree with you. I'm just stating the official position of US law, and that is that the fetus is not a person and that it has no rights. I agree that Peterson should have been charged with double murder (morally, not legally), and that any woman or doctor that kills a fetus should be charged with murder as well.

 

[misskitty]

Oh, sorry misunderstood how you were saying it...I thought you disagreed with his double murder charge.

I think abortion should be illegal, but that's a different subject for a different poll.

Why did Peterson even murder Laci? When I was following this case, everytime there were pictures of him in court, he was completely unremorseful and indifferent. It disgusted me and disturbed me to the point where I don't really want to follow the case. How can you be so cold? People like that aren't people, they're monsters.

 

[Moonbear]

Scott would have been convicted on the strength of the evidence against him for the killing of Laci. That murder alone carries a possible death sentence with a minimum life sentence. Adding a second murder doesn't mean they can kill him twice. They could have sentenced him to multiple life sentences, but he's only going to live one life, so that wouldn't have made a difference. It could affect parole, but I would imagine in a case like this, no possibility of parole would have been granted anyway.

I would have preferred that they used the fact that Laci was pregnant at the time of her murder as a contributing factor to Scott's sentencing rather than calling it a double murder. In other words, he still should have been given the death penalty because of how heinous the crime against Laci was rather than because it was a double murder.

As for calling it a murder because Laci wanted to have the baby, I'm not so sure, because Scott was the father, and he clearly didn't want it. If you are going to use the desires of the mother to claim the fetus is a person with its own rights, rather than an extension of the mother's body with a disposition determined by the mother's rights, then don't you also need to consider the father's desires? It's all very contradictory and circular to argue it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants or doesn't want the fetus and at the same time to argue the fetus is a separate person with its own rights.

I'm not saying I don't think it should be a crime, I just don't think the crime is murder. Let's assume Laci survived and it was only the fetus that did not survive. I would want to consider the crime to be one against the mother, not against the fetus. Call it forced abortion or aggravated abortion; much the same way intercourse is legal but forced intercourse is illegal and called rape. This way, abortion is not made illegal, but if the mother did not choose the abortion and someone forcibly causes an abortion, it is a crime. You can then still tack on all the other charges that are applicable, murder of the mother, or if the mother survived, attempted murder of the mother, aggravated assault, battery, etc.

In other words, if it is only a crime if it is the mother's choice to keep the baby, then it is a crime against that woman's right to that choice, not a crime against a fetus that has no inherent rights.

All that said, I still agree with the decision to sentence Scott to death.

 

[misskitty]

Its a good explanation about the fetus. I just have trouble trying to get my mind around it.

 

[Kerrie]

It's rather condescending to suggest that I cannot think clearly about the issue of whether or not the killing of a fetus is murder because I have never parented a child.

Take what I said how you choose, but I did state a fact.

That's nice, but being desired by its mother isn't enough to confer personhood on a fetus. The fetus is simply not legally considered a person in this country - if it were, then abortion would be murder. It is considered to be an inert body part, a non-person mass of cells that, though human, does not yet have any rights. It is still just an appendage of the mother, which is why she is legally allowed to remove it at any time if she so desires. In being consistent, the best a person that kills a fetus should be charged with is mutilation.

Who considers this? Men who make a lot of the laws? I feel my baby moving inside me, it's pretty difficult to convince me that my baby is a "non-person mass of cells".

Again, judges don't make charges. The prosecutor brings forth charges, and the judge determines if the prosecutor can legally bring those charges. In the Peterson case, the prosecutor could bring the charge of murder against Peterson for the killing of Connor because, under California law, the killing of a fetus is considered to be murder.

Notice that I said judges interpret the law, I said nothing about them making charges or the laws. Interesting you first refer to Laci's baby as a mass of cells, and then use the name given to him.

Being human does not make you a person. Humanity is a biological concept, whereas personhood is a legal construct. Slaves were legally considered 3/5 of a person for many years and, at this point, fetuses are not considered to be persons at all, not even in fractions.

I hardly think you can make a comparison between a fetus and slavery that has been outlawed for over 100 years. If you look at the long road ahead, and not just today, it is possible that this case is a step in the direction towards fetal rights. Where to draw the lines and make boundaries is what would have to be hammered out.

Scott would have been convicted on the strength of the evidence against him for the killing of Laci. That murder alone carries a possible death sentence with a minimum life sentence. Adding a second murder doesn't mean they can kill him twice. They could have sentenced him to multiple life sentences, but he's only going to live one life, so that wouldn't have made a difference. It could affect parole, but I would imagine in a case like this, no possibility of parole would have been granted anyway.

Logically, I think Scott was given a "double-murder" sentence mostly to appease the outraged who had been heavily exposed to this story by the media. My point on this however is not just the harm done to a mother-to-be, but the fact that her right was taken away to bear her child, just like taking away her right to abort her child.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Due to the large number of death sentences that have been overturned because of the new DNA technologies, I have no faith in the justice system. We know with near certainty that many, many innocent people have been put to death. That said, I think this scumbag is guilty as hell, and even though I don't support the death penalty, when I heard the news today I couldn't help but feel a sense of...good! ...street justice, and all that I guess. Still, I doubt he will ever be killed. But then again, with the heavy swing right in this country right now they might start frying them suckers like eggs on a Texas road. Just like they do in Texas.

 

[Gale]

I don't like the death penalty really at all. I kinda think we ought try harder to just rehabilitate people, especially like people who seem like there's a chance they could still function in society. hmm,

... i had this really great anectdote about chickens, but suddenly i don't think its appropriate...

Anyways, i do think he's guilty at any rate. And really, he seemed kinda erm... normal? which is weird to me. Cause that's a really nasty thing he did... and to be so... "whatever," about it seems weird. Like, you'd think only psycho's would be so nonchalant about it... so maybe he is a pyscho. i dunno, he seemed pretty average though...

 

[gravenewworld]

How is partial birth abortion not considered murder then, if Scott Peterson killed an unborn 8 month old child and it is considered murder? So what if the child was desired? Orphaned children aren't desired by their mothers, does this not make them a living being?

 

[misskitty]

Partial birth abortions are considered murder that's why they are illegal. I don't really think Peterson is all that 'normal'. There was no display of any kind of emotion during his trial...you would think he would change his expression or feel remorseful or cry or something. There was nothing. I would hardly call that normal.

 

[Kerrie]

i agree with you misskitty, his sense of non-feeling during the whole thing is a clear indication that he doesn't regret what has happened...even in the slightest chance he wasn't guilty, why isn't he emotional about his wife and child to be dead?

 

[arildno]

i agree with you misskitty, his sense of non-feeling during the whole thing is a clear indication that he doesn't regret what has happened...even in the slightest chance he wasn't guilty, why isn't he emotional about his wife and child to be dead?

Or he could be numb with shock at having lost them.
I don't know this case, but I do know that you rarely can tell guilt or innocence by looking at a person's facial expressions or behaviour towards the public.

 

[BobG]

The justice system generally gets it right. I would imagine he's guilty. I still don't understand how you can "murder" an unborn child that isn't supposed to legally be a person with rights, but whatever.

I agree with loseyourname.

California's law allowing someone to be prosecuted for murdering an unborn child was a huge first step for those wanting to outlaw abortion. Just because the US Supreme Court ruled abortion legal under Roe v Wade, doesn't mean states can't pass laws making it illegal. It just means there's a real good chance the US Supreme Court could strike it down. The California law just ensures the US Supreme Court will get another chance to rule on the rights of the unborn. A favorable ruling would create an interesting balance between two precedents in the event the abortion issue comes up directly before the Supreme Court, again.

 

[Kerrie]

Or he could be numb with shock at having lost them.
I don't know this case, but I do know that you rarely can tell guilt or innocence by looking at a person's facial expressions or behaviour towards the public.

This event happened over 2 years ago. To this day, he shows absolutely no emotion and he claims he is innocent. If he truly is innocent, I would suspect some sort of verbal statement (in the very least) to others of how horrid this act was. Do some reading on this case arildno, then you might understand the circumstances better.

California's law allowing someone to be prosecuted for murdering an unborn child was a huge first step for those wanting to outlaw abortion. Just because the US Supreme Court ruled abortion legal under Roe v Wade, doesn't mean states can't pass laws making it illegal. It just means there's a real good chance the US Supreme Court could strike it down. The California law just ensures the US Supreme Court will get another chance to rule on the rights of the unborn. A favorable ruling would create an interesting balance between two precedents in the event the abortion issue comes up directly before the Supreme Court, again

Again, the murderer of Laci and her baby took away her right to bear her child. Abortion has to do with the mother having that choice, not anyone else, including the laws of our government.

 

[arildno]

Well, since I've already said I didn't know the case why do you go on about it?

I am, however, rather surprised that you seem to think you are endowed with an ability to determine a person's guilt or innocence by his appearances on the news.

 

[Kerrie]

Well, since I've already said I didn't know the case why do you go on about it?

I am, however, rather surprised that you seem to think you are endowed with an ability to determine a person's guilt or innocence by his appearances on the news.

Perhaps your opinion would be more of an informed one. You are basing an opinion just on these words of this thread. Do some research and find out for yourself if you are going to have a say. I have followed this story closely since it happened just several hundred miles away from me, thus I do feel my opinion is at least informed. Also, reading what his relatives and acquaintences have said about him has also helped me form my opinion, not just by what he looks like in the courtroom.

 

[arildno]

Opinion?
Wherever have I expressed any opinion as to this person's guilt or innocence?

... his sense of non-feeling during the whole thing is a clear indication that he doesn't regret what has happened...even in the slightest chance he wasn't guilty, why isn't he emotional about his wife and child to be dead?

What sort of argument is this?
This is just an extrapolation on your part from how he seems to appear in public.

 

[BobG]

Again, the murderer of Laci and her baby took away her right to bear her child. Abortion has to do with the mother having that choice, not anyone else, including the laws of our government.

For the crime to be murder, it has to be against the unborn child. If an abusive husband/boyfriend killed the unborn child while beating a pregnant woman, it wouldn't be up to the woman on whether to press charges or not. The husband/boyfriend would be tried for murder because he committed a crime against the unborn child.

If the crime is against the mother for depriving her of her right to choose life or death for her child, then the crime is something other than murder.

I'm not sure how most states handle that kind of situation. Seems the crime should certainly be more than just assault against the mother, but, if the unborn have no legal rights, assault against the mother is the only crime the abusive partner committed.

 

[loseyourname]

Take what I said how you choose, but I did state a fact.

No, you didn't. The question of whether any act that results in the death of a human organism should be considered murder is a technical, legal matter. My opinion, based on how I feel, is not what I am discussing, and I think I've made it clear that this is the case.

Who considers this? Men who make a lot of the laws?

Yes, and the justice system that they create.

I feel my baby moving inside me, it's pretty difficult to convince me that my baby is a "non-person mass of cells".

I'm not trying to convince you. In fact, I stated in an earlier post that I don't personally believe this to be the case:

I actually agree with you. I'm just stating the official position of US law, and that is that the fetus is not a person and that it has no rights. I agree that Peterson should have been charged with double murder (morally, not legally), and that any woman or doctor that kills a fetus should be charged with murder as well.

Nonetheless, it remains a fact that, in light of Roe v. Wade, the supreme court and law of the land do consider the fetus to be a 'non-person mass of cells.' This is a legal fact that does not take your feelings into consideration.

Interesting you first refer to Laci's baby as a mass of cells, and then use the name given to him.

You can name a pet rock if you want. That doesn't change its legal status.

I hardly think you can make a comparison between a fetus and slavery that has been outlawed for over 100 years.

Why not? It's the best analogy I can come up with, as it is the only other widespread case where an entire class of humans were considered to be non-persons by the US legal system. I suppose there are other limited cases. Humans that are on death row are clearly limited in their personhood, as they no longer have the rights to life and liberty prescribed to ordinary citizens. Humans that are permanently comatose are probably not considered person, though I may be wrong about that.

If you look at the long road ahead, and not just today, it is possible that this case is a step in the direction towards fetal rights. Where to draw the lines and make boundaries is what would have to be hammered out.

Perhaps it is. In fact, I think that I have made it fairly clear elsewhere that I hope this is the case.

My point on this however is not just the harm done to a mother-to-be, but the fact that her right was taken away to bear her child, just like taking away her right to abort her child.

I agree that doing so is a crime; it just isn't murder. Murder is not defined as taking away a mother's right to carry her child to term. Murder is defined as intentionally ending the life of a person that has the right to life. A fetus is not considered by the legal system to be such a person with such a right. The law contradicts itself.

To make it clear as clear can be (hopefully), I personally would hope that the killing of a fetus would be considered murder, and that a fetus would be considered a person with the right to not be killed. It should have this right, and the taking away of this right should be murder, regardless of who is doing the killing.

However, I also want to make it clear that my personal feelings in this matter are not relevant. This is an academic discussion and I would hope that we can make the distinction between the way the legal system actually operates and the way that we personally feel it should operate.

 

[Kerrie]

Opinion?
Wherever have I expressed any opinion as to this person's guilt or innocence?

Then what is the point of your participation of this thread? The question being asked is what do you think? I would say you aren't really on topic then if you aren't planning to offer an opinion. Stop picking mine apart and start presenting your own.

 

[Kerrie]

Yes, and the justice system that they create.

Notice that I didn't use the term "women", the ones who are really affected ultimately by these laws.

Nonetheless, it remains a fact that, in light of Roe v. Wade, the supreme court and law of the land do consider the fetus to be a 'non-person mass of cells.' This is a legal fact that does not take your feelings into consideration.

Yes, however, abortions can only be done in the first trimester, not when the baby is 6 months gestational age. Did you know this? I am in my second trimester, I would be turned away at this point from an abortion clinic if I were to seek one.

You can name a pet rock if you want. That doesn't change its legal status.

I just thought it was a little bit contradicting on your references. Connor would have been able to live at the point of his mother's murder with hardly any health issues.

Why not? It's the best analogy I can come up with, as it is the only other widespread case where an entire class of humans were considered to be non-persons by the US legal system. I suppose there are other limited cases. Humans that are on death row are clearly limited in their personhood, as they no longer have the rights to life and liberty prescribed to ordinary citizens. Humans that are permanently comatose are probably not considered person, though I may be wrong about that.

Define legal system a little more clearly? There are all sorts of cases where comatose people are involved with the legal system at the moment. At any rate, I can hardly consider my unborn child anything of a slave, but more of an opportunity of life.

I agree that doing so is a crime; it just isn't murder. Murder is not defined as taking away a mother's right to carry her child to term. Murder is defined as intentionally ending the life of a person that has the right to life. A fetus is not considered by the legal system to be such a person with such a right. The law contradicts itself.

I think the law is actually in a state of change due to some of these instances, thus making the laws more contradictory currently over this. That is why there are judges however to interpret the law under individual circumstances. In Texas last month, Lisa Underwood (7 months pregnant) and her 7 year old son Jayden were slain by the father of Lisa's unborn baby. He was not charged with 3 murders, only 2. There isn't any push either to charge him with a third murder, thus that tells me that the laws work differently according to who is interpreting them.

To make it clear as clear can be (hopefully), I personally would hope that the killing of a fetus would be considered murder, and that a fetus would be considered a person with the right to not be killed. It should have this right, and the taking away of this right should be murder, regardless of who is doing the killing.

I would agree up to the point of who is doing the killing at what stage of the pregnancy. The mother should have the choice up until the 2nd trimester, anytime after that is beginning to cross a line of killing a sentient being.

However, I also want to make it clear that my personal feelings in this matter are not relevant. This is an academic discussion and I would hope that we can make the distinction between the way the legal system actually operates and the way that we personally feel it should operate.

There are times that the legal system is influenced from how we as a society feel it should operate...take the example of Kerry's law here in Oregon that most likely will be passed.