2004-11-15

From CourtTV.com:

The jury found [Scott] Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in her death and second-degree murder, meaning "not premeditated," in their son's death.

Um, excuse me? How is killing a fetus via killing the mother not "premeditated?" If killing the mother is deemed premeditated, or first-degree murder, how can you not rule the same for killing the child? If you kill the mother and do not take steps to preserve the life of the child, i.e. you removed the child from the fetus in order to save its life, then isn't the child's murder premeditated as well? I mean, if you murder the mother knowing that the child will not survive the killing unless you take steps to save the child, then isn't that the same thing? If you know I'm going to die if you cut me off of food and water, isn't that premeditated? I don't get it.

Maybe there was some legal wrangling there that made the jury go with second-degree murder for the unborn child but if I was on that jury I would've fought for first-degree for both Lacy and Connor.

that was then - this is now