- #1
misskitty
- 737
- 0
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.
Let me know what you think and why.
Kerrie said: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.
loseyourname said: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).
loseyourname said: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).
misskitty said:I think its wonderful they are starting to draft and pass laws like that. Judges are judges for a reason.
Kerry said: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.
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.
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.
misskitty said: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 said: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.
loseyourname said: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.
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.
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.
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.
Or he could be numb with shock at having lost them.Kerrie said: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?
loseyourname said: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.
arildno said: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.
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
arildno said: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.
What sort of argument is this?Kerrie said:... 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?
Kerrie said: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.
Kerrie said:Take what I said how you choose, but I did state a fact.
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".
loseyourname said: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.
Interesting you first refer to Laci's baby as a mass of cells, and then use the name given to him.
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.
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.
arildno said:Opinion?
Wherever have I expressed any opinion as to this person's guilt or innocence?
Notice that I didn't use the term "women", the ones who are really affected ultimately by these laws.loseyourname said:Yes, and the justice system that they create.
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.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.
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.You can name a pet rock if you want. That doesn't change its legal status.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
As a scientist, I cannot comment on the specifics of this case. However, it is up to the jury to determine if there is enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution's argument was that Scott Peterson wanted to be free from the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood in order to pursue a relationship with another woman. However, the defense argued that there was no clear motive established.
Forensic evidence played a significant role in the trial, including DNA evidence, cell phone records, and the analysis of Laci Peterson's remains. However, the defense argued that much of the forensic evidence was inconclusive and could not definitively prove Scott Peterson's guilt.
There were several key witnesses in the trial, including Laci Peterson's family members, Scott Peterson's mistress, and various experts in fields such as forensic science and psychology. Each witness provided crucial testimony that contributed to the overall verdict.
The media coverage of the Scott Peterson trial was extensive and highly publicized, leading to widespread speculation and opinions about his guilt or innocence. However, the jury is instructed to base their decision solely on the evidence presented in court, not influenced by media coverage.