Unborn Victim of Violence Act

[Amy]

I was wondering exactly what that is? Is it the same as Laci and Conner's Law?

[blakely]

amy said:

I was wondering exactly what that is? Is it the same as Laci and Conner's Law?

Synopsis:

Providing that specified laws relating to homicide, assault, and physical injury apply to an unborn child; establishing that specified laws prohibiting homicide, assault, and physical injury against an unborn child do not apply to acts committed by the mother of the unborn child, acts committed during a specified legal abortion, or acts committed in accordance with specified medical practices; providing that a person may not be sentenced to death for a murder of an unborn child; etc.

[Amy]

Thank You

[aka]

blakely said:

amy said:

I was wondering exactly what that is? Is it the same as Laci and Conner's Law?

Synopsis:

Providing that specified laws relating to homicide, assault, and physical injury apply to an unborn child; establishing that specified laws prohibiting homicide, assault, and physical injury against an unborn child do not apply to acts committed by the mother of the unborn child, acts committed during a specified legal abortion, or acts committed in accordance with specified medical practices; providing that a person may not be sentenced to death for a murder of an unborn child; etc.

Interesting. How is unborn child defined? From the moment of conception or later on in the pregnancy? I ask because it might have interesting repercussions for the abortion debate even though it specifically excludes legal abortion. IOW, both sides might use the definition of unborn child in this act (depending on what it is) for ammunition.

[blakely]

I would assume from the moment of conception. Would it have any repercussions on the abortion debate? I know people are already using it to argue that the next step is to abolish abortions but frankly, that is silly. California enacted it's law making it a crime to murder a fetus back in 1970. Did that result in a curtailing of abortion rights? Hardly.

[aka]

blakely said:

I would assume from the moment of conception. Would it have any repercussions on the abortion debate? I know people are already using it to argue that the next step is to abolish abortions but frankly, that is silly. California enacted it's law making it a crime to murder a fetus back in 1970. Did that result in a curtailing of abortion rights? Hardly.

You are right. It won't curtail abortion rights. From everything I have seen in the abortion debates, both sides are desperate for any sort of ammunition. So, it will be interesting to see how they use this law to further their political agendas....

[blakely]

aka said:

blakely said:

I would assume from the moment of conception. Would it have any repercussions on the abortion debate? I know people are already using it to argue that the next step is to abolish abortions but frankly, that is silly. California enacted it's law making it a crime to murder a fetus back in 1970. Did that result in a curtailing of abortion rights? Hardly.

You are right. It won't curtail abortion rights. From everything I have seen in the abortion debates, both sides are desperate for any sort of ammunition. So, it will be interesting to see how they use this law to further their political agendas....

I would like to know what is the purpose or thinking behind making an assault on a pregnant woman two crimes. Granted, assaulting any pregnant woman should result in a more severe sentence for obvious reasons. If you are unaware the woman is pregnant – too bad. You take your victims as you find them.

There was a very good reason why California enacted its law back in 1970. Men were beating the fetus out of the woman and only subject to aggravated assault against the mother. That alone did not cover the harm that was done.

[hazel]

aka said:

blakely said:

Synopsis:

Providing that specified laws relating to homicide, assault, and physical injury apply to an unborn child; establishing that specified laws prohibiting homicide, assault, and physical injury against an unborn child do not apply to acts committed by the mother of the unborn child, acts committed during a specified legal abortion, or acts committed in accordance with specified medical practices; providing that a person may not be sentenced to death for a murder of an unborn child; etc.

Interesting. How is unborn child defined? From the moment of conception or later on in the pregnancy? I ask because it might have interesting repercussions for the abortion debate even though it specifically excludes legal abortion. IOW, both sides might use the definition of unborn child in this act (depending on what it is) for ammunition.

From the moment of conception i class an unborn child as a child. Its funny really because in the UK you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Yet at 24 weeks the child would be a proper baby by then. My daughter was born prefect in looks etc at just a few days after 27 weeks. How can they allow children to be aborted up to 24 weeks beats me. Im not sure what the laws are in the USA.

[Elric of Melnibone]

Not sure what the laws are about abortion, either. For me, life starts at the moment of conception and is a child. The baby is a separate entity, inside of the mother until birth. Then the child is covered under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the laws of the state the child is in. The child has rights at the moment of birth. Plus the child has a list of things the state and federal government are required to do for that child.

[Pameeeeee]

blackcurrant30 said:

aka said:

Interesting. How is unborn child defined? From the moment of conception or later on in the pregnancy? I ask because it might have interesting repercussions for the abortion debate even though it specifically excludes legal abortion. IOW, both sides might use the definition of unborn child in this act (depending on what it is) for ammunition.

From the moment of conception i class an unborn child as a child. Its funny really because in the UK you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Yet at 24 weeks the child would be a proper baby by then. My daughter was born prefect in looks etc at just a few days after 27 weeks. How can they allow children to be aborted up to 24 weeks beats me. Im not sure what the laws are in the USA.

Hazel... My son was born at 25 weeks. He was 2 pounds 2 ounces at birth and in less than 24 hours he dropped to 1 pound 7 ounces. At the moment of birth he was placed on a respirator but later that night he pulled out his tube and did so well they let him breathe on his own for the first 2 weeks, then of course he got tired and they put him back on it. Today he is a normal healthy 14 year old boy. So in my opinion at 24 weeks an abortion is murder. I'm pro-life when it comes to children.

Here's some of his pictures:
www.geocities.com/pameeeeee/index5.html

[hazel]

pameeeeee said:

blackcurrant30 said:

From the moment of conception i class an unborn child as a child. Its funny really because in the UK you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. Yet at 24 weeks the child would be a proper baby by then. My daughter was born prefect in looks etc at just a few days after 27 weeks. How can they allow children to be aborted up to 24 weeks beats me. Im not sure what the laws are in the USA.

Hazel... My son was born at 25 weeks. He was 2 pounds 2 ounces at birth and in less than 24 hours he dropped to 1 pound 7 ounces. At the moment of birth he was placed on a respirator but later that night he pulled out his tube and did so well they let him breathe on his own for the first 2 weeks, then of course he got tired and they put him back on it. Today he is a normal healthy 14 year old boy. So in my opinion at 24 weeks an abortion is murder. I'm pro-life when it comes to children.

Here's some of his pictures:
www.geocities.com/pameeeeee/index5.html

I agree with you pam very much i do. I dont see the need for abortion only when it is the last resort for the unborn child. My daughter was 2lbs 9ozs when she was born and apart from her problems shes turned out prefect. Every child should be given a chance in life.

btw i love your voice

[Deleted]

blakely said:

I would like to know what is the purpose or thinking behind making an assault on a pregnant woman two crimes. Granted, assaulting any pregnant woman should result in a more severe sentence for obvious reasons. If you are unaware the woman is pregnant – too bad. You take your victims as you find them.

Many states require the prosecutor to show that the defendant *knew* the woman was pregnant when he assaulted/murdered her. Knowledge can be implied from the circumstances, e.g. when the woman was visibly pregnant, witnesses who heard the victim tells her assailant that she is pregnant, etc.

[blakely]

little said:

blakely said:

I would like to know what is the purpose or thinking behind making an assault on a pregnant woman two crimes. Granted, assaulting any pregnant woman should result in a more severe sentence for obvious reasons. If you are unaware the woman is pregnant – too bad. You take your victims as you find them.

Many states require the prosecutor to show that the defendant *knew* the woman was pregnant when he assaulted/murdered her. Knowledge can be implied from the circumstances, e.g. when the woman was visibly pregnant, witnesses who heard the victim tells her assailant that she is pregnant, etc.

Well those other states are stupid. lol!

Malice is implied when the killing results from an intentional act and done with a conscious and reckless disregard for life. It's not necessary to be cognizant of the identity of a victim or even the victim's existence.

As you well know, I can take my uzi to a local club and let it rip without intending to hit anybody, kill 10 people, and be guilty of murder. There is no requirement that I specifically know of the existence of each victim. Same argument applies to the fetus.

[blakely]

aka said:

blakely said:

Synopsis:

Providing that specified laws relating to homicide, assault, and physical injury apply to an unborn child; establishing that specified laws prohibiting homicide, assault, and physical injury against an unborn child do not apply to acts committed by the mother of the unborn child, acts committed during a specified legal abortion, or acts committed in accordance with specified medical practices; providing that a person may not be sentenced to death for a murder of an unborn child; etc.

Interesting. How is unborn child defined? From the moment of conception or later on in the pregnancy? I ask because it might have interesting repercussions for the abortion debate even though it specifically excludes legal abortion. IOW, both sides might use the definition of unborn child in this act (depending on what it is) for ammunition.

Here is something I didn't know. In California viability is not an element of fetal homicide. However, the state must prove that the fetus is beyond the embryonic stage of 7 to 8 weeks.

[Dea]

I think it's just another way to tack on another murder charge, however, for victim's like Laci and Conner, it was definitely applicable. But like you said Blakely, how can someone be held responsible for a fetus if it is unknown it existed. Pro-lifers get spastic over that kind of nit-picking.

[blakely]

deawelsh said:

I think it's just another way to tack on another murder charge, however, for victim's like Laci and Conner, it was definitely applicable. But like you said Blakely, how can someone be held responsible for a fetus if it is unknown it existed. Pro-lifers get spastic over that kind of nit-picking.

I obviously did not make myself clear. I am saying not only can you be held responsible for the death of a fetus even if you are unaware the woman is pregnant, you shd be held responsible.

If I shoot you and the bullet goes right through you and kills someone else that I can not see and I am unaware even exists, I am still liable for second degree murder. The same analysis shd be applied, and is applied in California, to a fetus.

[josephdphillips]

blakely said:

If I shoot you and the bullet goes right through you and kills someone else that I can not see and I am unaware even exists, I am still liable for second degree murder. The same analysis shd be applied, and is applied in California, to a fetus.

I believe Sec. 187 of the California penal code makes reference to the premeditated and unprovoked homicide of "a fellow creature." While premeditation is required, it need not be the premeditated death of a specific individual known to a defendant.

As for premeditation, surely the placement of a live round in the chamber of a pistol, pointing the pistol and firing it at someone imply premeditation to kill someone, as defined in the statute.

I am still waiting on a reply from someone astute in the interpretation of Sections 187-192 as to what second-degree murder actually is.

If you read all the language, there is no specific definition of murder in the second degree. The legislature only wrote "all other murders are in the second-degree."

Isn't that just peachy?

I still can't see a case of so-called second-degree murder that isn't also first-degree murder.

[blakely]

josephdphillips said:

I am still waiting on a reply from someone astute in the interpretation of Sections 187-192 as to what second-degree murder actually is.

If you read all the language, there is no specific definition of murder in the second degree. The legislature only wrote "all other murders are in the second-degree."

Isn't that just peachy?

Second degree murder are those murders not defined as first degree murder in PC § 187. See simple. :)

And yes, it is peachy. Why would any legislature want any more specificity? Are you now advocating that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and the poor murderer is not given notice of his illegal behavior? Hmmm, did you just reveal your inner anti, Joe? Lol!

josephdphillips said:

I still can't see a case of so-called second-degree murder that isn't also first-degree murder.

Not seeing and disagreeing are separate things.

[josephdphillips]

blakely said:

josephdphillips said:

I am still waiting on a reply from someone astute in the interpretation of Sections 187-192 as to what second-degree murder actually is. If you read all the language, there is no specific definition of murder in the second degree. The legislature only wrote "all other murders are in the second-degree." Isn't that just peachy?

Second degree murder are those murders not defined as first degree murder in PC § 187. See simple. :) And yes, it is peachy. Why would any legislature want any more specificity? Are you now advocating that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and the poor murderer is not given notice of his illegal behavior? Hmmm, did you just reveal your inner anti, Joe? Lol!

josephdphillips said:

I still can't see a case of so-called second-degree murder that isn't also first-degree murder.

Not seeing and disagreeing are separate things.

Although I wouldn't accuse anyone in either the California Assembly or Senate of being moral, the law should have at least some moral basis. I don't see the point of creating a section of criminal code so vague that no one can come up with a single example of behavior not in compliance with it.

Otherwise, the sole purpose of this imaginary crime of second-degree murder is to give prosecutors something to bargain with. Is that what this specious taxonomy is all about, Blakely?

I again ask someone here, anyone, to give me an example of a California murder that only qualifies as one in the second degree.

[blakely]

josephdphillips said:

Although I wouldn't accuse anyone in either the California Assembly or Senate of being moral, the law should have at least some moral basis. I don't see the point of creating a section of criminal code so vague that no one can come up with a single example of behavior not in compliance with it.

Oh, come on. Defendants are charged and convicted of second degree murder every day. The convictions are reviewed by higher courts and found not to be constitutionally vague.

josephdphillips said:

Otherwise, the sole purpose of this imaginary crime of second-degree murder is to give prosecutors something to bargain with. Is that what this specious taxonomy is all about, Blakely?

No, Joe, it's because the law, legislatures, and the majority of people of every state have found some murders more heinous than others. You may not agree with it, but so what? It is still the law and has been for centuries.

josephdphillips said:

I again ask someone here, anyone, to give me an example of a California murder that only qualifies as one in the second degree.

Why? There are literally tens of thousands of examples you can find on your own by going to findlaw.com, California cases, and typing in murder in the second degree.

[josephdphillips]

blakely said:

Oh, come on. Defendants are charged and convicted of second degree murder every day. The convictions are reviewed by higher courts and found not to be constitutionally vague.

That doesn't answer my question, Blakely. I am asking for the moral basis, not the political or legal justification for it.

[josephdphillips]

blakely said:

No, Joe, it's because the law, legislatures, and the majority of people of every state have found some murders more heinous than others. You may not agree with it, but so what? It is still the law and has been for centuries.

This is a debate board, as I understand it, Blakely. I do not agree with it, and I am asking you to explain why you do, other that to response with a tautology.

[josephdphillips]

blakely said:

Why? There are literally tens of thousands of examples you can find on your own by going to findlaw.com, California cases, and typing in murder in the second degree.

That would not provide me with an explanation, either, Blakely. That would simply confirm what I already know -- that first-degree murderers are tried as second-degree murderers simply out of convenience.

My question is simple, and the answer shouldn't be complicated, or completely absent in the case law.

Is there a murder such that it is classifiable under the murder statutes as second-degree and only as second-degree? Even hypothetically?

[blakely]

josephdphillips said:

blakely said:

Oh, come on. Defendants are charged and convicted of second degree murder every day. The convictions are reviewed by higher courts and found not to be constitutionally vague.

That doesn't answer my question, Blakely. I am asking for the moral basis, not the political or legal justification for it.

I am not interested in anything but legal justifications. Philosphy of Law bores me. But, I am sure you can find many good books on the subject at the public libary or a local law library. I suggest the 9th ciircuit library in Pasadena. Small, but pleasant, and with lovely large format landscape photos from Justice Hall's private collection on the walls.

[blakely]

josephdphillips said:

blakely said:

No, Joe, it's because the law, legislatures, and the majority of people of every state have found some murders more heinous than others. You may not agree with it, but so what? It is still the law and has been for centuries.

This is a debate board, as I understand it, Blakely. I do not agree with it, and I am asking you to explain why you do, other that to response with a tautology.

I have explained it. You neither agree nor accept my explanation.

[blakely]

josephdphillips said:

blakely said:

Why? There are literally tens of thousands of examples you can find on your own by going to findlaw.com, California cases, and typing in murder in the second degree.

That would not provide me with an explanation, either, Blakely. That would simply confirm what I already know -- that first-degree murderers are tried as second-degree murderers simply out of convenience.

My question is simple, and the answer shouldn't be complicated, or completely absent in the case law.

Is there a murder such that it is classifiable under the murder statutes as second-degree and only as second-degree? Even hypothetically?

According to you, and only you, there is no answer. And you talk about tautological!

Yes, Joe, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. We have been waiting for centuries for you to come along and revolutionize criminal law. lol!

You don't like the law. Fine. You don't agree with the law. Fine. But, I find games like these boring and not intellectually stimulating at all. Maybe, someone else will.

[Dea]

blakely said:

deawelsh said:

I think it's just another way to tack on another murder charge, however, for victim's like Laci and Conner, it was definitely applicable. But like you said Blakely, how can someone be held responsible for a fetus if it is unknown it existed. Pro-lifers get spastic over that kind of nit-picking.

I obviously did not make myself clear. I am saying not only can you be held responsible for the death of a fetus even if you are unaware the woman is pregnant, you shd be held responsible.

If I shoot you and the bullet goes right through you and kills someone else that I can not see and I am unaware even exists, I am still liable for second degree murder. The same analysis shd be applied, and is applied in California, to a fetus.

I see now, ok. And yes, the second example does explain it more. I do understand what you're saying now. At the time, I was thinking of a case I read where the woman was 6 weeks pregnant in a drug-buy gone wrong. So I didn't have alot of sympathy for her particular case.

[blakely]

Unfortunately, alot of pregnant women are murdered.

[limbololly]

OMG i just had a look at an abortion website and look at the discusting sight i found
www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9313pb.asp
i can't believe this can happen. I am for abortion in a case to case situation but for a person to do this is beyond F*ucked up!

[josephdphillips]

blakely said:

josephdphillips said:

That would not provide me with an explanation, either, Blakely. That would simply confirm what I already know -- that first-degree murderers are tried as second-degree murderers simply out of convenience. My question is simple, and the answer shouldn't be complicated, or completely absent in the case law. Is there a murder such that it is classifiable under the murder statutes as second-degree and only as second-degree? Even hypothetically?

According to you, and only you, there is no answer. And you talk about tautological! Yes, Joe, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. We have been waiting for centuries for you to come along and revolutionize criminal law. lol! You don't like the law. Fine. You don't agree with the law. Fine. But, I find games like these boring and not intellectually stimulating at all. Maybe, someone else will.

I was thinking with such a profound legal mind as yours, Blakely, that you would come up with a single, hypothetical example of a second-degree murder that would not otherwise qualify as first-degree.

I have read examples of such before, but none of these examples apply in California.

Of course, if the discussion is boring to you, I can't help that. It holds great interest to me, since I want to use the law to actually do some good, and not merely give prosecutors a toy to play with.