I have to admit that I have little interest in the Laci/Scott Peterson case, but an interesting spinoff of this particular scandal is how the fact that she was 8 months pregnant when she died reflects upon the whole controversy of feticide vs. abortion, i.e. if you can kill a fetus and be prosecuted for murder, doesn't that mean a fetus is alive, and that abortion is technically murder?

Not to me. The case should be proceed not as a double homocide, but simply as a really fucked-up homocide. Of course, Scott Peterson, assuming he did it, which I do, is a horrible bastard fucker who deserves to be strung up by his toes until his eyeballs pop, but he should be prosecuted for only one murder. Of course, the brutal nature of the murder and the fact that he knew his wife was pregnant with his own child should convince the jury that he is a psychotic fuck who should be killed post-haste.

If nothing else, I'd like to keep my opinions consistent, and if we start talking about prosecuting someone for two murders when a fetus is involved, things get complicated. Then the whole "when is it alive?" debate starts alllll over, and one has to consider how many months pregnant the person was when they were murdered. A slippery slope leads us to eventually debate whether it's a double homocide if Person A has unprotected sex with Person B and then kills her the following day.

However, killing a person who is obviously pregnant, especially with one's own child, is a remarkably heinous thing to do, and should certainly be considered when prosecuting the killer. Just as there is no legal difference between killing a 60-year wino and a 16-year-old valedictorian except for how that reflects on the killer's mind in the eyes of the jury.

Of course, this does not mean that damaging a fetus during a crime could not be a law unto itself which is not technically murder. That would be fine, but prosecuting it as murder will simply lead to legal entanglements and debates the likes of which we are seeing now, and may confuse the cases.

Consider the following scenarios:

1 - Person A kills Person B, who happens to be pregnant. Thing is, she's only 2 months pregnant, and Person A was not aware of this fact, and it was not readily apparent. Should this scenario be prosecuted as a double homocide?

2 - Person A hates person B passionately, so much so that A will kill B if given an opportunity to do so. Person B is a live-in nurse who is caring for a bedridden invalid, Person C. Now, if Person B is on the way to care for Person C, and Person A spots Person B crossing the street, then runs him over with a car. Person C, as a consequence, does not receive the care he needs, and dies. Though Person A is indirectly responsible for Person C's death, should Person A be prosecuted on a double homocide?

One can see how it gets sticky. So, I must say that Scott Peterson, while a very bad man, did not commit a double homocide. I do, however, feel that he should get the death penalty. Ideally, by cloning the cells of his unborn son, tying Scott to a wall and implanting an embryo made from these cells inside of him (they can do that now apparently), and allowing the resulting child to tear its way free from the man in a gory, uber-oedipal birth/death. I think that would be sufficiently poetic and horrible.


Post a Comment

<< Home