Pro-choice jurors held to their convictions, despite logic, decency and common sense.
Talk about spitting on someone's grave. Life should no longer surprise me, but it did last week when the Scott Peterson verdict was announced. Since some strange forces of nature deemed this murder trial to be worthy of nearly 24/7 attention, I won't rehash the story that preceded the guilty verdicts.
In typical California fashion, the far left jurors found Peterson guilty of murdering his wife in the first degree, but found him guilty of murder in the second degree of killing his unborn son Conner.
This defies all logic...at least to me. So, the jury reviewed five month's of evidence and determined that Peterson plotted to kill his wife Laci with premeditation, yet there was no premeditation to killing Conner.
Prosecutors spun a tale of Scott killing Laci, wrapping her in a blue tarp, weighing her down with concrete blocks, transporting her body to a fishing spot and dumping the body.
So, in other words, the jury believed that Scott did all of this with forethought and full intent, but oops accidentally killed their unborn son in the process in a moment of passion. Umm...I'm not an OBGYN, but when a woman is 8 months pregnant, it tends to be a little obvious. Besides, he never denied knowing she was pregnant.
Scott, according to the jury of his peers, deliberately killed his wife, but didn't kill his son with the same premeditation. Did he momentarily forget she was pregnant? Did he plan to kill Laci, but not Conner?
It's California. I guess anything is possible.
More than likely, if he intended to kill Laci, then he intended to kill Conner, and if he premeditated one murder, then he necessarily premeditated both.
All absurdity and wild theories aside, the jury's verdicts show how far people will go to defend the "right" for women to have abortions, despite this being contrary to their own logic. The jurors couldn't bring themselves to fully recognizing Conner as an equal to Laci, as an equal to themselves.
They found evidence to convict Scott of murdering Laci in the first degree and, therefore, had no choice but to find him guilty of killing Conner as well.
But, why not also convict him in the first degree murder of Conner? They had no reason other than a blind obedience to some imaginary concept that Conner wasn't fully human and therefore not deserving of the same respect as Laci.
Admittedly, I'm no attorney and my legal expertise is derived from countless hours of watching Judge Judy and the television show The Practice. Still, San Mateo Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi put it simply and without any legalese, according to CNN.
"First-degree murder you need ... expressed malice and intent to kill and premeditation," Delucchi said according to a CNN report.
Although the one act killed both Laci and Conner, the jurors insisted on distinguishing the two murders, one being premeditated and the other being not. Murder is murder, but the jury declared the killing of Laci more severe than the killing of her unborn son.
The only reason seems to be a disdain for life before birth and an unwavering belief that life somehow isn't as valuable until birth.
Greg Gelpi covers education for the News Daily. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or (770) 478-5753 Ext. 247.