.....then how come someone who kills a pregnant woman is charged for killing two people
137635
Blingme - Her question was stated correctly. She is essentially trying to determine why states allow abortion if it is illegal to kill a human being. And if a state charges a murderer with two murders for murdering a pregnant woman, what is the exact definition of life. \n\n1) Either a baby is alive and the two murders is correct. In this case, abortion should be illegal; or,\n\n2) A baby is not alive and only one murder should be charged. In this case, abortion would be okay.\n\nShe is pointing out a convenient catch-22 in the abortion debate.\n\nEDIT: bree123 - I do not believe she is calling out the hypocrisy of the double homicide law. She is calling out the hypocrisy of abortion.\n\nAnd citing the ACLU does NOT make me put a lot of trust in your judgment. It is a little like me citing all the evidence the National Right to Life cites proving that life starts at conception. You aren't going to buy that. Any evidence cited should be from a) a disinterested party, or b) a source that gives BOTH sides of the argument - like my initial assessment of her statement above.\n\nSource(s): Debate 101.
314154
Well, the victim still lives with the full impact of the crime.  A woman who was raped doesn't suddenly become "unraped" and only assaulted, she still has to live with the results of the actual crime.  A person who was shot during a robbery does not suddenly have the bullet hole close and all the damage undone just because the scum criminal got his charges reduced.\n\nSo, instead of sitting and whining that there still is a record of what you did, just be glad you got off way easier than your victim(s) did.
568776
Prosecutors tend to do that because it makes the case easier to try. If they charged her for all 5, they would have to present all of the evidence of all 5 deaths and the jury would have to consider the questions of fact for all 5, which would make the trial and deliberations take just that much longer and provide the defense more places to provide reasonable doubt. They simply pick the cases that are easiest to prove. Charging her with only 3 would have no effect on her eventual punishment.
426032
yes, the same applies is doing the commission of a crime one of the criminal get killed the other can also be charge with his death.\nThe innocent bystanders wasn't doing anything so they will have a case
645172
yeah, but answer this....if a woman was raped, should she be forced to give birth to the child of her rapist and have that constant reminder? that is the truly sick thing in this situation. and even if it was just a highschool girl who did an irresponsible thing.....why ruin her life AND the life of her unborn child?? i am totally and completely prochoice, and believe that abortion should absolutely be legalized.
56850
you don't if you killed someone or was a part of it turn yourself in and have the body taken care of appropriately. I don't think that's the case, I think you are just being an ignorant.
674895
In a case like this - raping a 12 week old baby girl entrusted ti his girlfriend to babysit - then i think a prison sentence of any lenght is too lenient. His girlfriend has received a lesser sentence which I think is also wrong. She allowed him to do this awful, sickening thing. The poor baby has been left with horrific internal injuries which mean she will never, ever have a normally functioning body. \nTHE GUY & HIS ACCOMPLICE SHOULD BOTH BE EXECUTED FOR THIS CRIME. I THINK HERE IN THE UK WE ARE WAY TOO LENIENT.
161290
ummm that they kill each other???
434503
yes. why should murder be legal? it is murder I don't care what anyone says that baby is alive when you kill it. If you don't want a baby then don't fvcking get pregnant
87987
They kill murderers, you defend them.\n\nYou kill babies, they defend them.\n\nSeems clear to me.\n\nIf you are talking about the murderers that bomb abortion clinics (your question wasn't as clear as I prefer, and I politely request a clarification for future answerers), then they should be tried, judged, and sentenced regardless of their reasons.  They have commited a crime.  If they have any ethics at all, they won't make excuses and they'll take responsibility for their actions (it might have been worth the sacrifice for them from their view).\n\nWe should never tolerate those who undermine the U.S. and try to destroy our government or defame our Presidents (Democrat or Republican, or whatever).  That includes people who commit crimes in riots and protests, sedition during wartime, and people who libel or slander our President or others.
165468
First of all - of course a murderer can be charged for killing someone else.  That's not double jeopardy.  It's an entirely new crime against an entirely different person.\n\nDouble jeopardy means that you cannot be charged more than once for having committed specific acts at a specific time and place which constituted a crime.  If I shoot you Thursday at 6:00, I can be tried fully and finally only one time for murder.  If something goes wrong in my trial before the end, they can start again.  If I lose, I can appeal a point of law.  But I cannot be found Not Guilty and then arrested again for shooting you Thursday at 6:00 - even if new evidence comes to light.\n\nThe reason for Double Jeopardy laws is to promote full and final administration of justice.  A case must come to an end and that must be it.  Otherwise, the courts would be filled up with disputes and criminal trials that would never end.  Prosecutors would rush to trial on the theory that if they lose, they can prepare better or gather more evidence and try again.  And juries would have no real reason to ever come to a decision on the theory that they can just pass the job off to the jury in the next trial.\n\nOne oft-quoted example is of the woman framed for her husband's murder, found guilty and sent to jail.  Upon release, she finds out her husband faked his death.  She sets out to kill him believing that, since she's already been convicted of killing him, she cannot be tried for his murder again.  THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG.  And NAISA below is wrong as well.  Since killing her husband would happen at a different time (years later) than the crime she was convicted of, they are two separate crimes and she can be charged, tried and convicted all over again.
377401
"Fair fight?"  How can it be fair?  If the people fighting originally were not shooting, just hitting with bare fists, maybe it could be "fair" by some stretch of the imagination.  Everyone aiming a gun at another person should be charged with attempted homicide, and those who killed someone?  Murder in the first degree.
468446
Just what you do with them ? I agree , a killing is a killing and I think it started with an eye for a eye or revenge . \nAs it says in the Bible , " Vengeance is mine , " saith the Lord and I don't seem to remember him saying , that it's alright to kill someone that hurts you . \nAm I right or wrong , just asking ? If your against killing baby's then why not against all killings \n But do we really help society , by killing one another .?\n Does it really deter  murderers , doesn't seem to , in the studies I've seen .
28693
It really depends on the state, because each one has different unborn victim laws. However, at the very least, she would likely have to cause bodily harm to the unborn child to be charged with anything.
359906
If they are 2 seperate legal people then one would be tried for the crime (not both of them) but how you would punish that individual would be down to the court..... Mmmm, but how they'd do that - I haven't a clue!
442175
Actually, this IS considered murder in several states who have changed their laws in the last few years. Read the information provided in the following link:\nhttp://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/MarciniakTestimony.htm\n\nTracy Marciniak was a friend of mine for the short time she lived here in Florida, and I became familiar with this issue through her. She was directly responsible for getting the law changed in her home state (Wisconsin) after her unborn baby died as a direct result of the brutal beating she received from her own husband.\n\nAs the "best friend" of a woman who has been assaulted as you have described, I URGE you to contact the police on her behalf, if she won't do it herself. She should have an order of protection in place immediately, and, despite her grief, be willing to press charges against the person who assaulted her. Your friend may have used poor judgement in getting involved with someone she didn't know all that well, but that is no excuse for what has happened to her. She is a victim, in every sense of the word, and needs help to get through her ordeal and loss. She should speak with a grief counselor and also someone who is a victim's rights advocate. These professionals will help guide her through the difficult days ahead. By no means should this crime go unpunished. Even if the guy can't be charged with murder (because of the laws in your state), he can most certainly be charged with aggravated assault and battery, and possibly other domestic violence crimes as well. He should NOT be allowed to go off on his merry way, as surely another woman will bear the brunt of his dangerous behavior down the road. I wish you and your friend much strength and luck in this difficult and sad time. I think that she will heal more quickly if she is able to do something that makes her feel as if she has some control again - and pressing charges against this animal is a good place to start.
65230
The baby has done nothing wrong.  It has not even had the chance to sense anything.  To cut that short is wrong.  I know there is a lot of pain in life, but there is also so much joy.  The innocent have the right to experience it and make choices.  And if you believe in pre destination, that aborted baby might grow up to cure AIDS, or something.\n\nThose on death row under sentence to die have made some horrible choices and choices have consequences.  (The Bible says,"You reap what you sow.")  Why should a person's life fall outside the jurisdiction of this principle?  In capital punishment, the victim had a choice made for them, society in an effort to legislate morality makes the decision to compensate for the loss of a life.\n\nThe difference is in the choices made.  Unborn have no say so in it.  The condemned made their choice.