If Scott Peterson killed his wife with a baby in her stomache, why did they count the death of the baby as murder? Shouldn't it have been one charge of murder and one charge of practicing medicine without a license (abortion)? To give him a murder charge is to say it's illegal to kill an unborn baby.
Sorry, I know it's a grim question, but I find it interesting.
2006-12-01 07:37:35 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Well the first count was obvious, since he killed his wife Lacie
However, the baby was considered under murder because it was found "born" when both bodies were washed up on the shores shortly after the dissapearance of his wife. The prosecution's medical experts were able to prove that the baby had never grown to full term, and died at the same time as his mother. ( http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/092204_ctv.html )
Since she was nearly full term (and babies can be born in the 7th, 8th and 9th months) the prosecutors determined that it was murder.
abortion isn't murder under any laws in this nation.
2006-12-01 08:46:28 · answer #1 · answered by arus.geo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because the baby was medically deemed viable outside the womb, and not even qualified for an abortion at the trimester she was in, it is considered it's own person. which gets it's own murder count. And depending on how evidence was given, (i wasn't there at the trial) if it was found that the baby was actually born before the mother officially died or that the baby actually took it's first breathe again it was viable as a person. and since the body of the baby was actually found separate of the mother, it would actually seem that the baby was born despite her death.
i hope that made sense.
2006-12-01 07:42:47 · answer #2 · answered by Bella 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The prosecutor determined that the baby would be considered a "person" even through he wasn't born because of his fetal age. The courts generally recognize a baby as "living" after 3 months of age and should you hurt someone and cause them to loose the baby, they could be charged with murder depending on the situation.
2006-12-01 07:49:01 · answer #3 · answered by Raqual A 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good thought. I just love how people change their minds because of convience......Many people feel that a baby is not alive until its born so a mom can have an abortion if she wants...but during that same time if the mother keeps the child and it gets killed by someone else....oh wait it's alive and therefore murder.....very hypocritical to me.....
My view is that an unborn baby is still that.....a baby, a human life....and murder is murder.....but I don't make the rules
Why do we get on mother so bad when they kill their kids....we hate them....think they should be killed....but yet we allow them to do just that...Kill their baby....befores its born...whats the diff.....very hypocritical to me also....
2006-12-01 07:49:42 · answer #4 · answered by yetti 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is well settled law in California that if a person (not the mother) knowingly kills a fetus, it is murder. It was ruled that in a case where the mother lived but the fetus was knocked out of her, as well.
The only choice allowed is that of the mother, before the child is viable, because there is a trade-off of rights percieved in that situation.
2006-12-01 13:11:17 · answer #5 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are unsure if he actually drowned the baby, or if it was still inside of her. If you remember correctly, the baby washed up on shore before the mother. It did still have umbilical cord attached, but who is to say that her murder didn't cause her to go into labor and have the baby before she actually died? Therefore, murder was fair game. The baby was full term, and if not drowned, would have thrived.
2006-12-01 07:48:36 · answer #6 · answered by valerie s 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He killed the woman as well as the unborn baby who could have lived outside the mother's body.
2006-12-01 07:46:06 · answer #7 · answered by attn deficiency. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm fairly professional-existence so I understand the position you're coming from on an emotional element. despite the indisputable fact that, there regrettably is a huge difference in this usa / international between a lady voluntarily ending the being pregnant herself through signing a paper and willingly dealing with the moves and someone ending the existence of the youngster in a compelled way. that is all legality. yet i recognize the position you're coming from.
2016-10-08 01:38:23 · answer #8 · answered by kinnu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was charged with 2 accounts of murder cuase he killed his wife and cut the baby out of her stomache and killed the baby to make sure the baby was dead.
if it was up to me abortion doctors would all be up for murder also cause i see what thay do as murder cause it is. thay are killing innocent babys
2006-12-01 07:55:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It could be that the fetus was past the point of a legal abortion in the State of California. You will find similar judicial decisions across the nation.
2006-12-01 07:45:59 · answer #10 · answered by jpbofohio 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋