How is it double murder? Our legal inconsistencies!

Let me put it in large type for those that have difficulty reading..

The historical standard for personhood is birth.

Historically, prior to becoming a person at birth, you are an organism. After birth you are a person AND an organism.

0 Replies

You are hung up on a word that you are misusing. Slaves were still persons. They just lacked rights that their masters had. There are lots of instances of people having their rights reduced or removed. Commit a crime and see if you retain all of the rights that other persons have. Are you going to argue that capital punishment doesn't reduce a person's rights?

You wish to compare a criminal or murderer who has their rights removed to an unborn child ?

How does that make sense?

Can an unborn child be murdered? Yes/ No if yes how?

Ill use your heading to help you answer!

The historical standard for personhood is birth.

This is where we abandon the historical standard isn't it? lol

if need be. lol

SYNONYMS standard, benchmark, criterion, gauge, measure, touchstone, yardstick. These nouns denote a point of reference against which individuals are compared and evaluated: a book that is a standard of literary excellence; a painting that is a benchmark of quality; criteria for hiring an excellent teacher; behavior that is a gauge of self-control; donations from the public, a measure of the importance of the arts; the program's success, a touchstone of cooperation in the community; farm failures, a yardstick of federal banking policy. See also synonyms at ideal.

0 Replies

Bartikus,

You are like a 2 year old child that is incapable of understanding anything beyond yes and no.

I didn't compare an unborn child to a criminal. You asked for another instance of a person not having the same standing as others. Since a fetus is not necessarily a person it in no way relates. How does it make sense for you to ask me to explain something I never said?

An unborn child can be murdered because the law can define things as "persons" under the law without them being a person in the historical sense. (See Joe's explanation of the corporation as person.) The law has basically moved the line to "viable" as opposed to "born". If a fetus can live if it were born then it is considered viable. Of course, that probably isn't even an issue in the Scott Peterson case since you completely ignored what CJane wrote about the consideration that the baby Conner was BORN before he died ergo it was murder in the historical sense.

Let me recap. Child is born. Child becomes PERSON at birth. It is murder to kill a person.

Or --- If child were to be born at given time it would be viable. Child becomes person at birth. Upon death of mother, child is on its own and viable so it becomes person.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Bartikus,

You are like a 2 year old child that is incapable of understanding anything beyond yes and no.

I didn't compare an unborn child to a criminal. You asked for another instance of a person not having the same standing as others. Since a fetus is not necessarily a person it in no way relates. How does it make sense for you to ask me to explain something I never said?

An unborn child can be murdered because the law can define things as "persons" under the law without them being a person in the historical sense. (See Joe's explanation of the corporation as person.) The law has basically moved the line to "viable" as opposed to "born". If a fetus can live if it were born then it is considered viable. Of course, that probably isn't even an issue in the Scott Peterson case since you completely ignored what CJane wrote about the consideration that the baby Conner was BORN before he died ergo it was murder in the historical sense.

Let me recap. Child is born. Child becomes PERSON at birth. It is murder to kill a person.

Or --- If child were to be born at given time it would be viable. Child becomes person at birth. Upon death of mother, child is on its own and viable so it becomes person.

So an unborn child at 6 months can be a person or something less depending solely on whether the mother wants the child?yes/no....I know maybe? lol

0 Replies

Quote:

This is where we abandon the historical standard isn't it? lol

if need be. lol

If you abandon the historical standard then you have to SPECIFICALLY state you do so in the law. That is how and why things can be redefined. BUT THEY MUST BE REDEFINED or they fit the historical standard.

The law can define a cat as a person for the purposes of a given law. But without such a definition in the law then person would only refer to a born human. A law can define a person as a viable fetus if it wants to. It doesn't change any of the other laws that deal with persons.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

So an unborn child at 6 months can be a person or something less depending solely on whether the mother wants the child?yes/no....I know maybe? lol

Like telling a 2 year old they can't have candy because it will ruin their dinner. Remind yourself to never use the term "logic" in a sentence before you make a statement.

Yep, its called "defined by law."

0 Replies

An unborn cat can be a person under the law if a law wants to define it as such. Can you understand this simple idea?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
This is where we abandon the historical standard isn't it? lol

if need be. lol

If you abandon the historical standard then you have to SPECIFICALLY state you do so in the law. That is how and why things can be redefined. BUT THEY MUST BE REDEFINED or they fit the historical standard.

The law can define a cat as a person for the purposes of a given law. But without such a definition in the law then person would only refer to a born human. A law can define a person as a viable fetus if it wants to. It doesn't change any of the other laws that deal with persons.

It's great to know the laws can be changed especially using the arguments drawn here. Thanks

The law could make killing a cat an equal to murdering a human? wow

Calling me a 2 year old doesn't seem to make you appear anymore logical! Some would say just the opposite.

We all know why personal attacks are used. lol

0 Replies

Eventually everyone gives up parados Wink

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Eventually everyone gives up parados

I agree....

I appreciate you guys trying to help me to see it correctly! The way you do. I just wanted as complete of an understanding as can be had. Who better to shed light on the subject than parados and calamityjane. Rolling Eyes

Fact is I understand all too well the concepts surrounding these legal questions. Like many, I just don't neccessarily agree with them all. Any simple minded 2 year old can understand that! lol

This particular forum I believe covers legal philosophy and concepts! Do you understand? lol

I was not trying to debate what the law is as much as what it should or should not be. Legal philosophy, concepts....not just yours or mine. Everyone has different thoughts on these questions.

Thanks to everyone i did not mention who also helped.

I'm so glad I'm openminded to others views.

Thanks again Laughing

I understand that one unborn child can be given the status of a "person" and another may not.

One is given protections that another is deprived.
Why? Because one is wanted...the other not.

This poses a problem in some people's minds of the 14th amendment of equal protection.(Not all)

Maybe it does'nt matter as long as we can live with the laws in place.

Abortions are wrong because....you were not aborted and that's a good thing! Glad to see you made it despite your views or complex.

Have a great holiday guys. lol oh and merry christmas..ho, ho, ho
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/kerryemailUVVA.html
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/roevswades.htm

0 Replies

Re: How is it double murder? Our legal inconsistencies!

Bartikus wrote:

How is it possible for this man to be considered guilty of a double murder when only one human being with rights was destroyed?

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/photo_gallery/guilty-death/index.html

Abortion advocates claim an unborn child is not a seperate person with inalienable rights.

Both cannot be correct. Which is it?

If a man kicked a woman and the baby died would it be murder, mere assault or something in between? Why?

Is there an inconsistency here?

Bartikus:

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise that a crime cannot exist unless it is directed against a "person with inalienable rights."

All states have general police powers. In the exercise of those general police powers, state legislatures define crimes and establish punishments. States do not have unlimited power to define crimes and establish punishments; there are constitutional limits.

When states define and punish crimes, they do so to vindicate legitimate state interests. When a state prosecutes a statutory crime, the state prosecutor does not represent the alleged victim; the state prosecutor represents the state. Accordingly, it is completely irrevelant whether the alleged victim of the defined crime has legally cognizable rights or not. As an example, the state has a legitimate interest in criminalizing and punishing cruelty to animals. The state's authority to criminalize cruelty to animals is not contingent on whether animals have or don't have inalienable rights.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life. That interest is not contingent on whether that potential life might or might not have rights. However, until a fetus is viable, a state's legitimate interest does not supercede a woman's fundamental right protected by the Constitution to determine her own procreative destiny and to choose for HERSELF (in consultation with her doctor) whether to bear and beget children. Once a fetus is viable, a state may prohibit the termination of pregnancies except in cases where an abortion is necessary to protect the health or life of the woman.

Athough a state's legitimate interest in potential life cannot trump the womans's constitutionally protected interests (prior to viability), a state's legitimate interest in potential life justifies the criminalization of the conduct of other persons who act unlawfully to terminate potential life.

In California, the state legislature (pursuant to it police powers) has defined murder as follows:

Quote:

187.

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.

(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Source: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

A state may criminalize the destruction of potential human life as murder so long as the state stays within the constitutional limits placed on its police powers. There are no inconsistencies in the law; you have created a false dilemma.

0 Replies

Debra says:

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise that a crime cannot exist unless it is directed against a "person with inalienable rights."

I made no such premise! The crime of MURDER can only be committed to a Person or Persons by a Person or Persons. This is the premise I begin with. Not the one you have assigned to be my premise. Is this premise faulty?

Debra says:

All states have general police powers. In the exercise of those general police powers, state legislatures define crimes and establish punishments. States do not have unlimited power to define crimes and establish punishments; there are constitutional limits.

When states define and punish crimes, they do so to vindicate legitimate state interests. When a state prosecutes a statutory crime, the state prosecutor does not represent the alleged victim; the state prosecutor represents the state. Accordingly, it is completely irrevelant whether the alleged victim of the defined crime has legally cognizable rights or not. As an example, the state has a legitimate interest in criminalizing and punishing cruelty to animals. The state's authority to criminalize cruelty to animals is not contingent on whether animals have or don't have inalienable rights.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting potential human life. That interest is not contingent on whether that potential life might or might not have rights. However, until a fetus is viable, a state's legitimate interest does not supercede a woman's fundamental right protected by the Constitution to determine her own procreative destiny and to choose for HERSELF (in consultation with her doctor) whether to bear and beget children. Once a fetus is viable, a state may prohibit the termination of pregnancies except in cases where an abortion is necessary to protect the health or life of the woman.

Athough a state's legitimate interest in potential life cannot trump the womans's constitutionally protected interests (prior to viability), a state's legitimate interest in potential life justifies the criminalization of the conduct of other persons who act unlawfully to terminate potential life

I agree that this is the way the law is. Protecting "potential life" is and should be a state's interest. A mother should not be required to surrender her life for the "potential life" within her. Just as I should not be required to give my life for the sake of your's and vice versa.

This is where the problem arises. Is the premise I pointed out faulty where I say only a "person" can commit murder if the victim is a "person"? Or can as one said, that the law can consider a cat a "person" and thereby making the killing of a cat.....Murder or equal to the crime of killing you or I?

Does a cat need to be considered a "person" in order to receive the same level of protections as a person. ex.(in order to make killing a cat.....murder carrying the same penalties as killing us)

Your knowledgable answers to these questions would be appreciated!

If you are unsure of what I ask...you can pm me or just ask for clarification as I am asking for now.

Debra said:

A state may criminalize the destruction of potential human life as murder so long as the state stays within the constitutional limits placed on its police powers.

This is clear since the constitution is the "law of the land" and is interpreted ...as you know differently. Which is ok. It provides different perspectives and healthy debate.

Debra said:

There are no inconsistencies in the law; you have created a false dilemma

This is a statement that is indicative of an intelligence no-go area. Maybe where you do not see inconsistencies...another does. Where you do see inconsistencies...I and others may not! You are free to share your opinions and perspectives just as anyone.

This is just one area where I detect legal inconsistences...I'm willing to bet you do see inconsistencies in the law....somewhere right?

It is my contention that since so many things within the law can be open to interpretatiion and revisement....some of it maybe should not be. What defines a "person" under the law should maybe not be "toyed" with much.

I cannot see a person (human) killing a cat and being charged for murder serving a life sentence or going to death row. Same as a mouse, or a tree, or a bee, or a flea, or an organism of any sort other than a person.

Is this illogical to you? If it is then we are all guilty you see?

Maybe people will proceed and reap the rewards of their folly and wisdom accordingly.

Then again....maybe it is meaningless to ask.

By what authority does a person receive their inalienable rights? By men....by law....by what?

0 Replies

Quote:

Debra says:

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise that a crime cannot exist unless it is directed against a "person with inalienable rights."

I made no such premise! The crime of MURDER can only be committed to a Person or Persons by a Person or Persons. This is the premise I begin with. Not the one you have assigned to be my premise. Is this premise faulty?

Deny one premise to make another faulty one.

Read the bold Deb posted from the California law. It does NOT require personhood. It stated "fetus". There is no requirement that murder be a "person." The law can define it any way they want to.

0 Replies

For someone that denies they made any premise about a person's inalienable rights you seem to rely on the argument a lot.

Quote:

By what authority does a person receive their inalienable rights? By men....by law....by what?

If your premise has nothing to do with inalienable rights then you have no basis to ask this question. The fact that you ask the question validates Deb's statement about your premise.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Debra says:

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise that a crime cannot exist unless it is directed against a "person with inalienable rights."

I made no such premise! The crime of MURDER can only be committed to a Person or Persons by a Person or Persons. This is the premise I begin with. Not the one you have assigned to be my premise. Is this premise faulty?

Deny one premise to make another faulty one.

Read the bold Deb posted from the California law. It does NOT require personhood. It stated "fetus". There is no requirement that murder be a "person." The law can define it any way they want to.

Ok. my premise is faulty! Murder can occur to things other than persons as defined by law! Got it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

For someone that denies they made any premise about a person's inalienable rights you seem to rely on the argument a lot.

Quote:
By what authority does a person receive their inalienable rights? By men....by law....by what?

If your premise has nothing to do with inalienable rights then you have no basis to ask this question. The fact that you ask the question validates Deb's statement about your premise.

No I said murder is a crime that can only be carried out by a person or persons toward another person or persons. This is why it is a crime of the highest order because it denies a person all of their inalienable rights forever.

Only persons have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This is why killing cats is not and will never be murder...it might be a crime....but a crime that is less than murder since CATS do not have these INALIENABLE RIGHTS!

Reread what she wrote:

Debra says:

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise that a crime cannot exist unless it is directed against a "person with inalienable rights."

A crime can occur just not the crime of murder!
I said the crime of MURDER cannot exist not just any crime! Murder is usually done to a person with INALIENABLE RIGHTS. PLEASE cite a case other than an unborn fetus where MURDER was the charge for a victim that did not have the inalienable right to life! Good luck

My premise is based on a person having inalienable rights. Do you believe people have inalienable rights? I can ask this question if I so choose....my right to do so is not in your hands! You can choose to not answer if you desire or are unable.

I ask again .....by what authority do people have inalienable rights to begin with? By law? I'll give you a hint.....people do not derive their INALIENABLE RIGHTS from other people or the laws people write!

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

This is the foundation of our nation and it's laws!

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

The crime of MURDER can only be committed to a Person or Persons by a Person or Persons.

Again, you are operating under a faulty premise. The California murder statute explicitly defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

The law regulates CONDUCT. The crime of murder is not contingent on whether the victim has or does not have inalienable rights. The statute that criminalizes murder focuses on the CONDUCT of the offender. The state has an interest in protecting potential human life. By killing a fetus, the murderer is not interfering in the fetus's rights because the fetus doesn't have any rights. The murderer's CONDUCT is interfering in the state's legitimate interest in protecting potential life and that CONDUCT is worthy of punishment.

Take a look at the Fifth Amendment (applicable to the Federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (applicable to the State government). The Supreme Law of the Land limits GOVERNMENT conduct. It specifically states that the government (state or federal) shall not deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deprive any person of equal protection of the laws.

A FETUS is not a "person" protected by the Constitution from GOVERNMENTAL deprivations of rights. In order to be a PERSON protected by the Constitution from governmental denials or deprivations of rights, the PERSON must be born.

Accordingly, if the Government enacted a statute that required abortions for population control purposes, a fetus in not a person with an inalienable right to life and the mandatory abortion statute could not be challenged on the basis of fetal rights. However, the statute could be challenged on the basis that it violates the woman's liberty interest to determine her own procreative destiny and to decide for herself whether or not to bear and beget children.

You must understand that the Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT--it does not apply to private actors. The GOVERNMENT cannot violate the rights of a fetus because a fetus is not a person protected by the Constitution from government deprivations until it is born. However, that doesn't mean that YOU, a private actor, cannot be penalized for prohibited conduct that interferes with legitimate state interests.

There are no constitutional impediments that would limit a state's police powers from defining murder as the killing of the fetus so long as exceptions are made for the woman and her doctor for abortions prior to viability. In a criminal offender's capacity as a private actor, it makes no difference that the fetus is not a person protected by the Constitution from the deprivation of rights. The limitations in the Constitution apply only to government actors. All that matters is the STATE'S legitimate interest in protecting potential human life. So long as the state's murder statute doesn't unduly burden a woman's constitutionally protected liberty interests, the state may serve its legitimate interest in protecting potential human life by defining murder to include the killing of a fetus.

0 Replies

I can cite thousands of cases where a person lost their life due to the intentional killing by another person and it wasn't murder. The US just hit its 1000th capital punishment. That isn't murder even though the person being killed has inalienable rights.

Anyone killed by someone in self defense has inalienable rights but it isn't charged as murder.

Your argument is faulty because it is built on several faulty premises.
1. a fetus is a person.
2. murder is only murder because of inalienable rights
3. murder can only be of a person

One has to wonder what you mean by these two statements.

Bartikus wrote:

Debra says:

You are making arguments based on your own faulty premise that a crime cannot exist unless it is directed against a "person with inalienable rights."

I made no such premise! The crime of MURDER can only be committed to a Person or Persons by a Person or Persons. This is the premise I begin with. Not the one you have assigned to be my premise. Is this premise faulty?

Bartikus wrote:

No I said murder is a crime that can only be carried out by a person or persons toward another person or persons. This is why it is a crime of the highest order because it denies a person all of their inalienable rights forever.

You now argue you said what you previously claimed you didn't say. Anyone can see that based on the two quotes above.

0 Replies

By what authority does man derive their inalienable rights?

0 Replies

By what authority does man derive their inalienable rights?

No "authority" is involved. The right to life is not conferred by any governing authority upon any person. All human beings are born with survival instincts as were our evolutionary predecessors. It's that survival instinct that prompts us to take our first breath of air upon birth. Without adaptable survival instincts, a species would become extinct. Early human beings never asked under "what authority" did they have the right to life; it was a natural given simply by virtue of birth and they did everything within their power to perpetuate their lives.

The word "inalienable" means something incapable of being transferred. Accordingly the inalienable right to life means that the right belongs to the living person and that right is incapable of being transferred to a governing power.

0 Replies

How is it double murder? Our legal inconsistencies!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know