Category Archives: essays, editorials, fisks, and rants

Second Degree Murder

3 Replies

My wife, whose forensic science education included some law, pointed out major flaws in the first version of this post. It has been rewritten. – Funky]

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.

188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.

Scott Peterson was found guilty of murdering his unborn son, Conner. At first, I thought this might have had the potential to give a big boost to the pro-life movement. Though not yet born, Conner was deemed to be a person. His life was ended in an unnatural way by another person. That unnatural cause of death was deemed to be murder. In the face of this verdict, how much longer can late-term abortions continue?

At least, that’s how my reasoning went. However, after looking at the California penal code, it’s clear that no personhood was necessarily attributed to Conner. Furthermore, the inconsistency of charging murder for the intentional death of one fetus and legally protecting the intentional death of another is mind-boggling.

Might Peterson try to appeal based on that inconsistency? Might he challenge the constitutionality of code 187 of the California penal code? If he appeals and wins, how far back might that set the pro-life movement? Even he doesn’t, how long can Laci’s Law withstand attacks on its constitutionality, considering how quickly the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban was struck down?

On a side note, I think the jury members failed to properly perform their duties in full. If Peterson is guilty of maliciously murdering his wife and was fully aware of her being very pregnant, how could the death of the child not be considered to have been brought about with malice aforethought? Conner was found outside of the womb. Either he died violently when Laci died, died from lack of “life support” after Laci’s death, or was born alive and died by exposure or drowning. It’s not like Scott tried in any way to save the child. He had to have known the child would die as the result of killing the mother. That’s wanton disregard, i.e malice aforethought.

There’s Just Something About Him

1 Reply

I decided long before the election that I would not support the two-party system with my vote. At first, though, I was still open to the possibility. Before the Democratic primaries, I was shouting “Anyone but Bush in ’04” with other disgruntled citizens. Then I saw what the Democratic Party had to offer and I was beyond disappointed. Kerry got the nomination and for a while I thought, “If this man weren’t a poor excuse for a Catholic – perhaps an Anglican (I expect them to have muddled beliefs) – I might respect him enough to vote for him, if just to oust Bush.

As the campaign season progressed, however, Kerry and his rabid supporters made me dislike him more and more. He kept talking about grand plans he had, but never discussed their substance. He also stands polar opposite to me on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and homosexual marriage. The last I can bend on, but the others are non-negotiable.

Continue reading →

Wooing Undecideds and Independents

1 Reply

As someone who would rather rip out my intestines with fork than vote for Bush or
Kerry, I found Christian’s Conservative’s recent post, “The
Case for Undecided and Third Party Voters?” interesting. The arguments
for voting for Bush didn’t interest me. It was the attempt in and of itself that
got my attention.

Continue reading →

Going It Alone

4 Replies

There was a very interesting Marty Minto show recently. His Catholic producer, Shaun "Powerball" Pierce, received a booklet by R.C. Sproul called "Justification by Faith Alone". In it, Sproul examines what justification is according to Scripture, compares the Roman Catholic and evangelical stances on this core doctrine, and discusses the relationship of faith and works–all to show why "by faith alone" is so essential. As Sproul puts it, "The crucial issue of infusion versus imputation remains irreconcilable. We are either justified by a righteousness that is in us or by a righteousness that is apart from us. There is no third way." Pierce’s Catholic sensibilities were offended and a two-page response was the result. I’ve obtained his permission to reprint it here. I’d like to hear your reactions to it.

Continue reading →

Cheap Imitations

5 Replies

For the last hour or so, I’ve been watching the second of two debates between Vice
President Bush and Governor Dukakis on CSPAN. I was in sixth grade at the time of
original broadcast. I idolized the character of Alex P. Keaton in “Family Ties”
and parroted his conservative statements and supported the candidates he liked,
much to the chagrin of my liberal Democrat parents. In my social studies class,
I debated, as if I were Bush, against a classmate playing Dukakis. I don’t recall
the substance of the debate, but I know that, in the eyes of my classmates, I cremated
“Dukakis”.

A lot has happened since them. I’ve grown up and changed. I eventually shed my conservative
skin and accepted what my parents said as political gospel. I was a bleeding heart
liberal through most of college. I gradually learned that idealism and naivete
are a bad combination. I slowly drifted toward the middle, where I am today. I’m
still and idealist, but some of my ideals have changed. My political acumen is still
dwarfed by my knack for science, but I believe I have lost much of my former naivete,
and I think I see things more clearly than I used to and many of my peers currently
do.

I watched that Bush-Dukakis with great interest. I was surprised to note the similarity
of the questions asked. I was further surprised by how similar the answers were
to those heard from Kerry and Bush. There was a very distinct difference, however.
Both candidates were more thoughtful, intelligent, and responded to more questions
without evasion, than today’s candidates. Bush, Jr. and Kerry rarely strayed from
their campaign slogans and ready-made rebuttals. Neither has debated with either
the prowess or the substance of Bush, Sr or Dukakis.

When I stepped away from the TV to write this entry, I had one very clear idea in
my head. Both of the candidates in 1988 were head and shoulders above the candidates
of 2004. 2004’s candidates are cheap imitations of 1988’s. Given the chance,
I would vote for either Bush, Sr. or Dukakis before wasting my vote on either of
the vapid, inept, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, grandstanding egomaniacs running
today.