|
How do these laws work?
Can anyone here explain this to me?
If somebody kills a pregnant woman, then why would they ever be charged for two murders, instead of one? It seems to be in conflict with laws that permit an abortion. A woman can legally choose whether or not the baby can grow, develop, and live within her. If somebody makes that same choice by killing the mother, then wouldn't it make sense that only murder was made, not two? I'm not arguing for or against abortion, but rather don't see how these two laws can remain in effect when they contradict each other. Any information would be helpful, thank you.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Random Weirdos?
There was this murder that happened, Scott Peterson was accused of killing Laci Peterson, and their unborn son. He was at the place where they were killed, and he was just really sketchy. Here is a short article: [Link](Mouse over link to see full location) Anyways. they had some dicussion on whether or not it was a single, or double murder. I believe it ended up being a double murder trial. He was found guilty, and was given the death sentence. Either way, murder is murder, and ends up with the death sentence. I think that if it goes unsaid, like if he didnt get charged with the baby's murder, the family would be in more mourn, because their relative(the baby) would have no justice served.
]
if you kill a pregnant lady itd be fair that ud be charged with 2 murders because you not only killed a woman,but a child that wasa growing inside of her,BUT some laws permit abortion and that is fair,ill tell you how.When a woman realizes that she cant support her child,she gets rid of him,they permit this because imagine that the lady cant support the child.She might go stealing to get money for the kid or even worse,she can give the kid to abortion and the kid might grow up doing illegal things and itll be her fault!
]
These laws were put in place by pro-lifers trying to intentionally blur the line between a human life that's protected by law and a fetus, which is not. Their goal is to get everyone to ask questions like yours, and then to eventually rule abortion illegal.
The thing is, if we wanted to protect pregnant women we could create special laws that increase sentences for harming them specifically, but that's not what's happening, because not everyone cares as much about pregnant women as they do getting their political agendas pushed forward. I know you didn't ask for individual opinions on this issue, but I think it's sad.
]
My understanding, actually, is that double murder charges do not apply until the point at which the baby is considered 'viable', meaning that the baby could theoretically survive outside the womb. Any baby born at 25 weeks' gestation would have a very difficult time and would likely need life support, but the chance of survival is measurable. They could live. The youngest surviving baby born was born at 22 weeks gestation, I think, but that's happened once. So if a person kills a pregnant woman who is less than a certain date (I think it's 24 weeks gestation and less), the baby is not considered a separate murder because it died as a result of the mother's death and there was really little to no way to save the baby once the mother died. After the point of viability (and understand, the date is really a fluid thing - medical science is saving younger and younger babies and yet not all babies who are even full-term will be born alive or survive) it's considered two murders because the murderer could have killed the mother and then delivered the fetus caesarean section, so the baby didn't have to die just because the mother did. Also, at that point, one should almost always be able to definitely tell that a woman is pregnant. There should be no defense of 'murder requires intent and I didn't know she was pregnant, so you can't prove I intended to murder the baby.'
Really, regarding abortion, you will find that almost everyone who wants an abortion has one before 12 weeks. There are only a few clinics in the US that will do preg termination after 12 weeks. About 14-16 weeks, neurons are migrating and the baby's brain is developing, the baby starts moving, etc. At 20 weeks, the gender is usually discernable by ultrasound. A baby in a uterus already has some personality characteristics - it gets hiccups and it kicks or floats or swims. It may react differently to different sounds. You can usually feel it somewhere between 14 and 20 weeks. There are very few women who, having felt the baby move, would at that point chose to abort it. The only time I know of that a doctor would abort that late is to save the life of the mother or to prevent the birth of a severely disabled child (like one who did not develop a brain). By the time a woman is six months pregnant, she usually is quite at peace with her pregnancy and is not having any thoughts about aborting - for one thing, it's very dangerous for the mother to wait that long. In all likelihood, she's rather anticipating the birth, even if she decides to give the child up for adoption.
I hope that helps sort out why in the eyes of the law, it's a fetus one week and a baby with separate rights the next week.
Sabine
]
You are absolutely correct; these laws contradict each other flat out. It is deeply hypocritical and blatantly illogical that what is not alive when a woman chooses to terminate, is alive when someone else chooses to terminate her. It is a perfect example of our laws being based on people’s feelings and what the public wants, not on what makes rational sense.
In the US the Unborn Victims of Violence Act made the murder of "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb" a crime, but made it made special allowances for abortion. Of course it also made the pro-choice group very angry anyways.
But that is a federal law, and has basically no power in individual states. Some states treat any fetus, at any point of development, as a living being; others consider it illegally terminating a pregnancy to murder a pregnant woman (as compared to abortion, which would be a legal termination.) Some states do require that the unborn child must have passed through the embryonic stage, about 8 weeks into the pregnancy, in order for it to be considered homicide.
But that is still just plain stupid. Since an abortion can happen legally in nearly all states until 24 weeks into the pregnancy.
So why can these two laws stay in effect at once? Mainly because the judge and DA can pick which laws they feel are applicable to a given case. A man who murders a pregnant women, well everyone WANTS to sock it to him with a double-homicide charge, even if it doesn't make sense and the poor little fifteen year old girl sobbing that she can't raise a kid, well no one WANTS to charge her, even if what she is doing is wrong.
That is my opinion anyways, it’s about emotion, not reason.
]
i think its a double murder because in an aborting its the mothers choice to terminate the pregnancy. A murder consisting of the mother and the child is not really up to the mom.... ya know? i dunno if im explaining it well. :) but damn good question!
]
With out getting into a debate about abortion, the charging of two murders instead of one is just a stunt that the prosecution uses to make headlines and bring more drama to a court room. Saying a person killed a woman and her baby (born or unborn) pulls on the emotional strings of a jury which is sometimes necessary to get the conviction. The penalty for murder is the same whether you kill one person or two. The only time it matter is if the two murders happened in different circumstances and then you can be convicted twice with sentences to run concurrent or sequencial which can double the time spent in prison before possibility of parole.
]
More Questions: |