Southeast Unborn Victims of Violence Initiative

[Jake]

Unborn Victims of Violence Initiative

Written and co-sponsored by Jake and Cosmo Kramer

§1 
Whoever engages in conduct that causes the death of, or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense.

§2
(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--

      (i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or

      (ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, they shall be punished as having intentionally killed or having attempted to kill a human being.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.

(E) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution-

      (i) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

      (ii) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

      (iii) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

§3
 As used in this initiative, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

-Jake

Basicly the UVVA retooled for regional law, comments appreciated

[jokerman]

X Cosmo Kramer

[John Dibble]

X John Dibble

Just signing it. I'll probably abstain.

[Sam Spade]

Looks good to me and I support it also.

X Sam Spade

[Ebowed]

I will be voting for it.

Just for show: X Ebowed

[Brandon H]

X Brandon H.

[A18]

I'd like to take this opportunity to whine that Virginia is not in the Confederacy ("Southeast"). Ungrateful bastards. I'll be sure to burn the capitol to the ground.

[Jake]

Take it to another thread than, or better yet, maybe another board.

[Ebowed]

I'd like to take this opportunity to whine that Virginia is not in the Confederacy ("Southeast"). Ungrateful bastards. I'll be sure to burn the capitol to the ground.

Heh, well District 4 did acquire Kentucky and Oklahoma.  I'd like to get Virginia and West Virginia, but then we'd be such a monster of a district (and region).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Section 2(B) ensures that I’ll be voting against this.  I consider a primary aspect of good law is that a person may not be charged with a crime unless he may be reasonably be expected to know that he committed it.  “Double secret probation” may be a good idea in a movie but not for the law.

[A18]

I consider a primary aspect of good law is that a person may not be charged with a crime unless he may be reasonably be expected to know that he committed it.

If you beat a pregnant woman and injure her baby, who's fault is it you were too stupid to know you would do that? You obviously shouldn't have injuring her anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I consider a primary aspect of good law is that a person may not be charged with a crime unless he may be reasonably be expected to know that he committed it.

If you beat a pregnant woman and injure her baby, who's fault is it you were too stupid to know you would do that? You obviously shouldn't have injuring her anyway.

But section 2(B) says that even if the defendant didn’t know and could not have been expected to know that the woman was pregnant, he can still be charged with a crime under this law.  What this law does is make an action a crime some of the time, based on facts unknown and that could not be known to the defendant, and that is what I fid objectionable.

There are two ways around the objection I’ve raised  here.
1) Make the law apply only if the defendant had knowledge of the pregancy or a reasonable person should have known.
2) Make the law apply if the action would have caused harm to an unborn child had the woman been pregnant even if she wasn’t.

[John Dibble]

I consider a primary aspect of good law is that a person may not be charged with a crime unless he may be reasonably be expected to know that he committed it.

If you beat a pregnant woman and injure her baby, who's fault is it you were too stupid to know you would do that? You obviously shouldn't have injuring her anyway.

But section 2(B) says that even if the defendant didn’t know and could not have been expected to know that the woman was pregnant, he can still be charged with a crime under this law.  What this law does is make an action a crime some of the time, based on facts unknown and that could not be known to the defendant, and that is what I fid objectionable.

There are two ways around the objection I’ve raised  here.
1) Make the law apply only if the defendant had knowledge of the pregancy or a reasonable person should have known.
2) Make the law apply if the action would have caused harm to an unborn child had the woman been pregnant even if she wasn’t.

May I suggest a third option?

First, an example - if someone gets drunk, drives, and ends up running someone over, they are charged with vehicular homicide. However, they did not intend to cause this harm, so they are not charged with the same degree of vehicular homicide as someone who intentionally runs another person down.

Obviously, one must be responsible for one's actions, intended or not. So, I think a fair compromise is to make Section 2b charge a person in such a situation with a lesser degree of the same crime - less punishment, but the punishment still happens. Just a suggestion for this case(not the intentional case), but they could be allowed to pay a sum of money to the victim in exchange for not getting jail time over this particular charge(still would receive normal punishment for assault on the woman), perhaps only if the victim agrees to it.

[jokerman]

Section 2(B) ensures that I’ll be voting against this.  I consider a primary aspect of good law is that a person may not be charged with a crime unless he may be reasonably be expected to know that he committed it.  “Double secret probation” may be a good idea in a movie but not for the law.

Hmm, if you beat, murder, etc a woman, even if you didn't know she was pregnant, it's still should be a crime. But, whatever, vote against it.

I completely agree with Jake.  A crime is a crime.  I have serious doubts whether a person wouldn't realize that he/she was beating on a pregnant woman.  I think adding something to cover that would only give criminals a way out.

[John Dibble]

I have serious doubts whether a person wouldn't realize that he/she was beating on a pregnant woman.

Pregnancy isn't always apparent, especially in the first trimester.

[jokerman]

I have serious doubts whether a person wouldn't realize that he/she was beating on a pregnant woman.

Pregnancy isn't always apparent, especially in the first trimester.

Yes, but I would rather have a few dangerous people serve longer for something that wasn't appearant to them than several danerous people getting off the hook by using that as an excuse.

[Ebowed]

I've always found it fascinating how in a state like Oregon they can give a big thumbs down to gay marriage, but when there's an abortion debate, it gets frozen.  I guess the same may be true of the Southeast.

[Sam Spade]

I still support it, fwiw.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hmm, if you beat, murder, etc a woman, even if you didn't know she was pregnant, it's still should be a crime. But, whatever, vote against it.

Unless someone has repealed the various State laws making assault and murder crimes, then the act of attacking or killing a woman (or even us unimportant men) is already a crime.  Adding a second charge for the same criminal action is bad law.

[Brandon H]

Well is someone who is considering attacking a woman, going to stop a say to themself "She is pregnant and I will get charged worse than if she wasn't pregnant so I better not attack her. But if she wasn't pregant, then I would attack her." So I don't think whether or not the attacker is aware of the fact she is pregnant.

[ian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's right!

[ian]

Section 2(B) ensures that I’ll be voting against this.  I consider a primary aspect of good law is that a person may not be charged with a crime unless he may be reasonably be expected to know that he committed it.  “Double secret probation” may be a good idea in a movie but not for the law.

I agree.

[A18]

If you get drunk while driving and hit someone, you should be charged with a more serious crime than if you get drunk and don't hit anyone.

[John Dibble]

If you get drunk while driving and hit someone, you should be charged with a more serious crime than if you get drunk and don't hit anyone.

Yes, I agree - I didn't say otherwise. But getting drunk and hitting someone on accident is still different from hitting someone on purpose. All I'm suggesting is that in the case of the criminal being unaware of the woman being pregnant, he be charged with a lesser crime than he would if he was aware, so he will still get a greater punishment than he would if you didn't punish him at all for the fetus' death.