quote:Originally posted by minesurfer: Another one I've been thinking about here lately... and I don't want to get into the politics or beliefs, but I want to know how the law reconciles the following:
How can Scott Peterson be convicted of two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for the fetus inside his wife? I guess what I'm having trouble with is how is the death of the Peterson fetus different LEGALLY from abortion? How does the law differientiate between Scott Peterson's actions and a Doctor performing an abortion? To me it seems like both actions result in the same thing, and if Scott Peterson is charged with murder, then the Doctor could be charged with the same.
That is the concern of pro-choice people over laws that make killing a fetus a crime. I think that such laws usually have a medical procedure exception.
I think in the Peterson case (I haven't been following it too closely), the baby was so close to term, that he could have survived outside the womb. With abortions, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. (Again, I have not really followed the abortion debate too closely)
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Identity Crisis, [the killer] was thrown in Arkham Asylum pretty much solely for the fact that he/she did something "crazy": killed, or directly caused the death of, multiple people for a given reason that sounds largely ridiculous to the average person.
Is it ever sufficient to say that a killer is "criminally insane" just because "no sane person would have done that, for that reason"? Seems kind of circular to me.
Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by STU: In Identity Crisis, [the killer] was thrown in Arkham Asylum pretty much solely for the fact that he/she did something "crazy": killed, or directly caused the death of, multiple people for a given reason that sounds largely ridiculous to the average person.
Is it ever sufficient to say that a killer is "criminally insane" just because "no sane person would have done that, for that reason"? Seems kind of circular to me.
Nope. There are actually a couple of insanity defense standards. The earliest is the McNaghten rules, which holds "...is not guilty of a crime if, at the time of the crime, they either didn't know what they were doing, or didn't know that what they were doing was wrong." So if a person takes an axe and strikes you with it because he thought you were Adolph Hitler, he would not be legally insane because he recognized you as a person and it is wrong to strike a person with an axe. If he had thought, you were a tree on the other hand, the defense would work. The killer knew Sue was a human, therefore, no legal insanity.
Another insanity defense is the irresistable impulse, where a person may know they are doing wrong but because of a mental impairment, can't control their actions. There is no evidence that the killer couldn't control his/her actions. Beyond that, the burning of Sue's body, hiring Captain Boomerrang, and sending Jack Drake a gun, don't sound like uncontrolable actions.
Then there is the Durham test, which is when "... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect". This was later modified to "severe mental disease or defect...[which causes a defendant to be] unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of [their] acts." The killer was able to appreciate that attacking Sue was wrong. He/she knew that such an act of harm would cause concern.
The last insanity defense is the Substantial Capacity Test, in which is "a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior. Substantial capacity is defined as: 'the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] act, or to conform...behavior to the...law.' " It is a combination of the McNaghten Rule and the irresisitable impulse.
While it doesn't look like the killer could raise an insanity defense successfully, that doesn't mean that he/she couldn't have ended up in Arkham to serve his/her sentence. However, it doesn't look like the killer had a trial. Rather, _____ just had him/her committed (which also wouldn't have happened so quickly).
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suppose a certain person, we'll call him Doc-- uh, Professor Mavayale, lost $50 to a certain other party, call her Skinny Cosmo, in 1883. While Professor Mavayale had every intention of paying his debt to Skinny Cosmo, he was prevented from doing so by his untimely murder by another party. Now Mavayale's current incarnation would like to repay Skinny Cosmo's current incarnation the debt he owes her, with interest. He also notes, however, that the current incarnation of the party responsible for his death is quite wealthy.
Could Mavayale sue the current incarnation of the party responsible for his death for the interest on the debt originally incurred to Skinny Cramer... uh... I mean Cosmo?
-------------------- I LIKE IKE!!
Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am uncertain about the law in regards to reincarnation. As it stands, Skinny Cosmo would have had to sue for repayment within the statute of limitations or else the debt would not have to legally be repaid. In general, the statute of limitations for a contract (including verbal contracts) is 7 years. Assuming the Skinny Cosmo did not get a judgement against you ... er I mean Professor Mayavale, then he is free of the debt. Seeing as the debt does not have to be repaid and there doesn't seem to have been any provisions that interest would accrue anyhow, this other party could hardly be held liable.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quislet, old friend, I need to secure you as my counsel in the upcoming courtroom LMB leadership battle between myself and Yellow Kid.
Will you consent to act as my representation? The vey future of the LMB could depend on it... I must regain LMB leadership so that I can enact the measures to safeguard us from horrible evildoers like the Red Bee. Just look at what has happened today.
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quis, I think all of LW would be better off if you either recuse yourself or serve as judge.
KP's blatant power-grab is liekly to be a bloodier mess than the rest of the recent stories combined.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kid Prime: Quislet, old friend, I need to secure you as my counsel in the upcoming courtroom LMB leadership battle between myself and Yellow Kid.
Will you consent to act as my representation? The vey future of the LMB could depend on it... I must regain LMB leadership so that I can enact the measures to safeguard us from horrible evildoers like the Red Bee. Just look at what has happened today.
Well KP,
I have to say that I did hang around with Yellow Kid for 3 days in Dallas (and actually rode in his truck once). So I feel that I could not fufill my lawyerly duties in a zealous fashion.
If you and Yellow Kid would like, I would be willing to act as a mediator.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can't force the parties to mediate. they must both be willing to do so.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm willing to bury the hatchet with KP if (1) he can persuade me he has nothing to do with the madness, and (2) he'll stop trying to undermine YK.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Must I remind everyone that my (former) Co-leader is Chief Magistrate of the Legion World High Court?
I'm afraid that he may end up having to rule on this so please do not try to influence him in any way. Anyone who does will have to deal with me!
-------------------- "Hey Jim! Get Mon out of the Zone!! And...when do we get Condo back?"
From: Paragon City on patrol | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Someone has been poisoning the honey in my café, causing several patrons to become ill. Isn't that like restraint of trade or something? Of course, I have liability insurance, but I think I should be able to sue the culprit for damages once he's caught.
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
