Support NeoGAF

[Tex117]

Nevermind.

Of course there is a difference. There is a huge difference.

But let me take a minute to teach you some law. (I think you know I'm a lawyer). Oh, and good to post with you again Deified Data....its been along time.

Model Penal Code definition of murder:

[2] "Murder" – The common law definition of "murder" is "the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought."

Ah! You might say.....a human being! Well let's look at the definition of human being as pursuant to the model penal code.

"[1] "Human Being" - The common law and majority approaches define the beginning of life as birth for purposes of interpreting the criminal homicide law. A minority of states now treat a viable – or, at times, even nonviable – fetus as a human being under the homicide statute."

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim24.htm


Ah! But then you might say, well there was not malaiceaforethought.

Degrees of murder
"[3] "Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Injury" – Malice aforethought is implied if a person intends to cause grievous bodily injury to another, but death results. In states that grade murder by degree, this form of malice nearly always constitutes second-degree murder.



[4] Extreme Recklessness ("Depraved Heart" Murder) – Malice aforethought is implied if a person’s conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life. In states that separate murder into degrees, this type of murder almost always constitutes second-degree murder.
"

So yeah, it is inconsistent. The question again is, do we want this inconsistency?


Edit: Oh man!!! My epic post of law and everything...and everyone edited.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Reading that just (for me) begs the questions of what political games the courts are playing and also how laws can differ between states on something so critical as what life is. (Which then almost begs the question of why have states.) Bah.

Just as states have differing views on the death penalty. Some allow a death with no prosecution or consequences on part of the executioner and some don't.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

This doesn't make any sense. (your examples don't even come close to what we are talking about here).

I love that we have so many lawyers here on Gaf!

Legally, it is inconsistent. No question about it.

The question really is whether we want this inconsistency in the law?

Maybe your answer is yes, maybe your answer is no. Lots of reasons to come out one way or another, but don't kid yourself. It is inconsistent.

Okay, why? How does it not make any sense? Killing is legally acceptable under the law in some cases, and in such cases, they aren't murder. Not legally, not semantically. That's not an inconsistency.

Abortion is one of those instances.

 

[Deified Data]

Edit: Oh man!!! My epic post of law and everything...and everyone edited.

Haha, sorry dude. Just to clarify your post wasn't confusing at all...I was confused by the post you quoted more than anything, which made me think you were taking a position that you weren't.

 

[afreaknamedpete]

Funnily women are less likely paying child support than men.

But don't worry - although men are more likely to pay child support, women are also less likely incarcerated for not paying child support as well.

Additionally I would say money is just a part. Having no actual "family", only mother (which is the most probable case) or father is definitely a big(ger) problem.

That's definitely an ugly double standard. And while single parents are less than ideal, children with two parents who hate each other is even worse.

 

[Vermillion]

Oh, jeez, what a story!

 

[Tex117]

Haha, sorry dude. Just to clarify your post wasn't confusing at all...I was confused by the post you quoted more than anything, which made me think you were taking a position that you weren't.

LOL, me too. That post was bonkers.

 

[Tex117]

Okay, why? How does it not make any sense? Killing is legally acceptable under the law in some cases, and in such cases, they aren't murder. Not legally, not semantically. That's not an inconsistency.

Abortion is one of those instances.

Please see my post outlining the defintition of murder. (Hint, there is a fundamental problem with one of your definitions).

 

[SneakyStephan]

If it was done before the baby was considered 'viable' for life (abortion term) then I wouldn't call it murder.
Still a pretty terrible crime though, don't think he should get life in jail, doubt he himself considered it as murder when he did it.

Idk, 2 years in jail or something? Don't see how he's a danger to society.

 

[entremet]

Dude could've used a condom and prevented all this.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

If it was done before the baby was considered 'viable' for life (abortion term) then I wouldn't call it murder.
Still a pretty terrible crime though, don't think he should get life in jail, doubt he himself considered it as murder when he did it.

Idk, 2 years in jail or something? Don't see how he's a danger to society.

He forcefully made someone abort and otherwise wanted child. I'd say that is a big danger to society. I'm still torn on the murder charge. But he shouldn't see the outside of a jail cell for at least 15-25 years.

He inflicted a massive and irreplaceable emotional toll on someone.

 

[not psycho]

If we take it that the fetus was not a person, but rather a part of the woman's body, what would the punishment be?

For comparison, what are the punishments for:

1. Cutting off someone's limbs (arms, legs)
2. Harvesting someone's kidney against their will
3. Permanently blinding someone

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

It's murder.

After the mother has made the conscious decision to carry the baby through the pregnancy, for an outside party to purposefully induce the death of the future child constitues as a heinous crime.

And I'm pro abortions.

It is indeed a heinous crime, but calling it murder gives the fetus personhood status, which is critically important in determining abortion law. If this is murder, abortion is murder, too.

 

[gutter_trash]

it's not murder

Lee was six weeks and five days pregnant.

almost 7 weeks? common

Assault maybe? Whatever crime it is to wrongfully drug someone else

but not murder

 

[metalslimer]

It is indeed a heinous crime, but calling it murder gives the fetus personhood status, which is critically important in determining abortion law. If this is murder, abortion is murder, too.

Yep. We can't be willy nilly with our laws on emotion. Create a new law to put people in jail longer than what this is, but otherwise charge him with assault and be done with it. Life in prison on this charge is a joke.

 

[PaperFlame]

This thread is going to be a graveyard, I can see it already.

Anyway, dude is a fucking piece of shit, but life in prison seems like a bit much. 10, 15 years max and I think he'd more than learn his lesson. The point of prison is to rehabilitate after all, and I see no reason to assume this selfish, sick fuck is beyond rehabilitation. It's not like he's Jeffrey Dahmer.

But that's just me.

*waits for the impending shitstorm*

This.

More people with life in prison, meaning more money we have to pay for them.

 

[U Wot M8?]

Good, life in prison may be a bit much, but good something substantial either way will happen.

 

[daw840]

It seems to me that the crux of this issue here is the definition of life and when it starts.

IMHO, it's one of two points and all other points in between are just arbitrary nonsense. It's either conception or it's birth (I would also accept viability outside of the womb without drastic medical care.)

Though I think in this case it's got more to do with what actual charges to present here and what will stick.

If they choose to go with murder and it doesn't stick, he's off right?

 

[Vyroxis]

I could see serious assault charges, but not murder. All murder charges do is open up a legal shitstorm in the abortion debate.

The guy should certainly go away for a decent amount of time, however.

 

[Madness]

Wow, going to be tough for prosecutors to say it was murder of what was essentially still a fetus.

If she got pregnant in Feb, that means the fetus was only 2-3 months old.

Can you say it was murder? What if she got an abortion, it isn't murder then? What if she wanted an abortion but the boyfriend didn't?

I'm not taking any sides or stance here, this is interesting from a legal standpoint.

 

[Riggs]

There was a dude in Hip Hop thread telling another member to sprinkle some abortion drug on his girls ice cream cuz she was pregnant. I hope the dude didn't follow that advice lol.

The guy who said it was joking , just reminded me after reading this thread.

 

[Devolution]

Wow, going to be tough for prosecutors to say it was murder of what was essentially still a fetus.

If she got pregnant in Feb, that means the fetus was only 2-3 months old.

Can you say it was murder? What if she got an abortion, it isn't murder then? What if she wanted an abortion but the boyfriend didn't?

I'm not taking any sides or stance here, this is interesting from a legal standpoint.

It should be murder past whatever date women aren't allowed to get an abortion. It would be consistent then. So the states with timelines involved aren't actually being contradictory.

 

[entremet]

I'm fine with the murder charge. Terrible act. The woman wanted to keep the baby.

 

[stufte]

I'm fine with the murder charge. Terrible act. The woman wanted to keep the baby.

So what if a woman aborts a baby that the man wanted to keep? It's assault for sure, but we can't have it both ways. It's either murder in both instances or it's not.

 

[wildfire]

That would be forcing an abortion upon the mother in many ways.

I think the current laws are fair, or as fair as they can be. In the end, I agree with Mumei in that education and access to proper birth control is the most effective solution.

The current laws aren't fair. The current laws are set up to do two things.

1) Try to prevent society from producing less children than it would have without this set up.
2) Try and prevent children from being raised in terrible households which would weaken society in the long run.

FYI allowing a man to legally opt out of pregnancy in this day and age where women are given more employment and education opportunities wouldn't be the same as coercing an abortion before the 60s.


Before the 1960s I would agree with you this is coercion but when the opportunities for women and men to be single parents are similar its not.

The only problem is that single households are inferior to two parent households, and its unknown if there are more single households today; because men are forced to pay child support even if they aren't actually going to be around to be a father compared to forcing women to be at risk of raising their child by more men opting out of it.

Personally I think the situation as it stands is terrible. Two adults should actually come to mutual understanding on whether or not they should be parents raising children without the state acting as a bully for one party.

So what if a woman aborts a baby that the man wanted to keep? It's assault for sure, but we can't have it both ways. It's either murder in both instances or it's not.

If a man wants a baby he should go to an ovary clinic and pay someone to carry his child until term.

 

[Balphon]

If we take it that the fetus was not a person, but rather a part of the woman's body, what would the punishment be?

For comparison, what are the punishments for:

1. Cutting off someone's limbs (arms, legs)
2. Harvesting someone's kidney against their will
3. Permanently blinding someone

Depends on the jurisdiction.

But by way of example, in California, the statutory penalty for the crime you're describing (mayhem) can range from 2-10 years in prison. In turn, the maximum statutory penalty for aggravated mayhem in the same state (the same crime, but committed in an especially egregious manner) is life in prison.

 

[not psycho]

Depends on the jurisdiction.

But by way of example, in California, the statutory penalty for the crime you're describing (mayhem) can range from 2-10 years in prison. In turn, the maximum statutory penalty for aggravated mayhem in the same state (the same crime, but committed in an especially egregious manner) is life in prison.

Interesting. I found this quote about aggravated mayhem (in California), though I'm not sure if it is current or exactly how to interpret it:

A person is guilty of aggravated mayhem when he or she
unlawfully, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
the physical or psychological well-being of another person,
intentionally causes permanent disability or disfigurement of another
human being or deprives a human being of a limb, organ, or member of
his or her body. For purposes of this section, it is not necessary
to prove an intent to kill. Aggravated mayhem is a felony punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of
parole.

It seems like it might be possible to use something like this instead of murder.

 

[Karakand]

So what if a woman aborts a baby that the man wanted to keep? It's assault for sure, but we can't have it both ways. It's either murder in both instances or it's not.

You seem to be conflating equality before the law with equal standing before the law.

 

[someday]

I'm pro-choice not because I don't see the fetus as non-human. I'm pro-choice because it's first and foremost the woman's body. Whether the fetus becomes a baby or not is dependent on whether the woman chooses to carry it, not how many cells there are. In this case the woman chose to carry it so I don't see any problem with a murder charge. This whole notion that calling it murder hurts the pro-choice movement is ignoring that whatever you call it, it's ultimately about a woman's right to ownership of her own body, nothing else.

 

[zroid]

I don't see how this could be considered murder, but even so it's seriously fucked up. Hopefully officials will figure out how to charge him appropriately for the crime.

 

[Dunk#7]

I'm fine with the murder charge. Terrible act. The woman wanted to keep the baby.

What?

So the woman's desire to have the child dictates whether it is a life or not?

We have to be consistent with our laws one way or the other.

 

[John Dunbar]

Since you can't really call this murder, wouldn't an appropriate solution be for the man to donate sperm and pay for the artificial insemination until the woman is pregnant again, the woman this way being able to regain her destroyed property? This is of course assuming she only miscarried the fetus and did not suffer any lasting physical harm.

 

[Devolution]

Since you can't really call this murder, wouldn't an appropriate solution be for the man to donate sperm and pay for the artificial insemination until the woman is pregnant again, the woman this way being able to regain her destroyed property? This is of course assuming she only miscarried the fetus and did not suffer any lasting physical harm.

Not really okay with treating him like a stud either.

 

[Pollux]

As much as I would like for this to be murder, I just don't see how it can be considered murder from a legal perspective without opening up a huge can of worms. Call it what you will, but legally I can't really see this as murder.

 

[Mumei]

In all fairness, I think you're asking him to prove something not easily proven. I don't expect him to offer proof that so-and-so was the more "qualified" because obviously whoever the court chooses is more "qualified" from a legal standpoint, whether they are or not. I think we could all agree that courts could stand to be a bit more objective when deciding how to place a child and steering away from gender-normative notions of "women are nurturers, men are providers".

I certainly agree with the broader point you're making; I was objecting to the claim that the deck is that stacked against men. For instance:

It is filled with tales of women who were the primary earners in a marriage, and who watched their husbands gain primary physical custody of their children when the marriage ended. There are now 2.2 million divorced women in the United States who do not have primary physical custody of their children, and an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek such custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.

More:

BROADER SHIFT

The growth in single fathers remains a small percentage of the larger shift away from the traditional family. The majority of single parents are still mothers. They head 7.2 percent of all American households, not just those with kids, compared with 2.4 percent of those households led by single fathers, according to census figures.

As women have entered the work force in larger numbers, they continue to do more of the parenting and still end up spending more time with the kids.

Between 1965 and 2000, men more than doubled the time they spent playing with and teaching their children, from 2.5 to 6.5 hours a week, according to a 2007 study by the Russell Sage Foundation, a New York-based social-science research organization.

Mothers spent almost double that amount engaging in such activities, or 12.9 hours a week, in 2000.

I'm not going to deny that men are ever discouraged to seek custody because of the perception that the courts are biased against them, or even that there has been a historical bias towards mothers having custody - and for precisely some of the same reasons that the first article mentions has been causing a shift. It seems that shifts in cultural expectations are leading to changes in how custody cases are considered. And so I don't think it's nearly as impossibly awful as he's portraying it.

 

[crozier]

As much as I would like for this to be murder, I just don't see how it can be considered murder from a legal perspective without opening up a huge can of worms. Call it what you will, but legally I can't really see this as murder.

Yep. If you can punish the father with murder, why not the mother? Either it's a living, viable human being or it's not. Period.

 

[TheFightingFish]

I'm pro-choice not because I don't see the fetus as non-human. I'm pro-choice because it's first and foremost the woman's body. Whether the fetus becomes a baby or not is dependent on whether the woman chooses to carry it, not how many cells there are. In this case the woman chose to carry it so I don't see any problem with a murder charge. This whole notion that calling it murder hurts the pro-choice movement is ignoring that whatever you call it, it's ultimately about a woman's right to ownership of her own body, nothing else.

So you are ok with say, a 38 week old baby being aborted? Seems pretty hard line there.

 

[McLovin]

So women are allowed to murder their unborn babies, but men aren't?

Men can't have babies, so I think its fair to give women this one.

 

[Loudninja]

Court records say Welden told Lee while she was at the hospital that he had given her Cytotec, not Amoxicillin. Lee is suing Welden for battery, intentional infliction of emotional harm, and punitive damages.

He needs to be charge with forging a signature as well.

This is really really sick.

 

[crozier]

Men can't have babies, so I think its fair to give women this one.

I don't think that's how the justice system is supposed to operate.

 

[Pachinko]

There are a number of charges this man should receive over this debacle but I don't feel murder is one that should stick. Mostly because it sets a bad legal precedent about abortion that could be use to take away the freedoms of women in the future.

Go ahead and throw the book at this heartless bastard for EVERYTHING else he can possibly be charged with though. I'm sure the religious right are having a field day over this one now though.

 

[malingenie]

I'm pro-choice not because I don't see the fetus as non-human. I'm pro-choice because it's first and foremost the woman's body. Whether the fetus becomes a baby or not is dependent on whether the woman chooses to carry it, not how many cells there are. In this case the woman chose to carry it so I don't see any problem with a murder charge. This whole notion that calling it murder hurts the pro-choice movement is ignoring that whatever you call it, it's ultimately about a woman's right to ownership of her own body, nothing else.

Your post made me think. Still not in the "murder charge is fine" camp, but it was interesting to read your opinion.

 

[Pollux]

Yep. If you can punish the father with murder, why not the mother? Either it's a living, viable human being or it's not. Period.

Pretty much. For full disclosure, I'm pro-life, and even I have SERIOUS problems calling this murder from a legal perspective. For the sake of hyperbole if I'm talking with friends, sure, yeah I'll call it murder. But from a legal perspective...just not seeing it.

 

[Hitokage]

Yep. If you can punish the father with murder, why not the mother? Either it's a living, viable human being or it's not. Period.

And if you can punish the mother, then that also opens up cases of involuntary manslaughter.

After all, sometimes the mother's body is negligent in carrying the pregnancy to term.

 

[Metaphoreus]

A successful murder charge in this case does not logically entail also treating abortion as murder. A woman's choice to abort an unborn child could simply be treated as a defense to murder, much like self-defense is.

Why is this being prosecuted by the federal government, though? Normally, murder only implicates state criminal law, and so the federal government wouldn't be involved in the prosecution.

 

[Syph Medwes]

Will be very interesting to see how this case plays out and if it sets and precedents.

 

[wildfire]

A successful murder charge in this case does not logically entail also treating abortion as murder. A woman's choice to abort an unborn child could simply be treated as a defense to murder, much like self-defense is.

You're arguing for the intent behind laws and not what is actually written.


I'm fine with calling this act murder but people are correct that legally speaking it shouldn't be defined as such.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

I certainly agree with the broader point you're making; I was objecting to the claim that the deck is that stacked against men. For instance:



More:



I'm not going to deny that men are ever discouraged to seek custody because of the perception that the courts are biased against them, or even that there has been a historical bias towards mothers having custody - and for precisely some of the same reasons that the first article mentions has been causing a shift. It seems that shifts in cultural expectations are leading to changes in how custody cases are considered. And so I don't think it's nearly as impossibly awful as he's portraying it.

I'll admit that the 99% figure was a lazy exaggeration

 

[AdventureRacing]

It should be murder past whatever date women aren't allowed to get an abortion. It would be consistent then. So the states with timelines involved aren't actually being contradictory.

This is exactly where i stand.

 

[TheSeks]

I don't really understand this. If she'd voluntarily taken it, it's not murder? That seems a bit... bizarre.

She took it without knowledge of what the drug was. The problem here is the father/kid forged his dad's signature to get the prescription and willingly lied about it to get her to do the abortion he wanted when she didn't want to abort the child.

I wouldn't go so far to say he legally murdered someone, but he did mislead and intentionally "harm"ed someone and should be in jail over it.

In fact the better charge to go with is the forging a prescription, that would be a better sticking charge.