At the bottom of

[_subgenius]

the slippery slope:

“Woman Who Killed Her Baby Has Conviction Overturned, Court Says Six-Day-Old Baby Isn’t Person”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3351608/posts

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, because free republic.com has a sterling record of accurate headlines.

Leaving aside the notion that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, let's see where the bottom of this slope actually is:

1. A woman who was 34 weeks pregnant was injured in a car accident caused by her reckless conduct.
2. When the woman was taken to the hospital, her unborn child showed signs of fetal distress.
3. On medical advice, the woman consented to a Caesarean Section to deliver the child early.
4. The child died six days later.
5. The mother's recklessness caused the child's death.
6. If the child had died before birth, the mother would not have committed a crime.
7. If the mother had intentionally aborted the child six weeks before she was due, she would have been guilty of a misdemeanor.
8. The mother was charged with several criminal counts based on the death of her child and the deaths of two people in another car.
9. The mother was found not guilty on all charges except for the charge of felony second degree manslaughter for the death of her child.

Here's what the court ruled, on a 2-1 split:

The underlying facts and circumstances of this appeal are tragic to all parties involved. The sole issue that we reach on this appeal, however, is whether a woman can be convicted of manslaughter for reckless conduct that she engaged in while pregnant that caused injury to the fetus in utero where the child was born alive but died as a result of that injury days later (see People v Martinez, 81 NY2d 810 [1993]).2 We hold that it is evident from the statutory scheme that the legislature, in enacting Penal Law § 125.05 (1) and § 125.15 (1), did not intend to hold pregnant women criminally responsible for conduct with respect to themselves and their unborn fetuses unless such conduct is done intentionally.

Here is the problem the court confronted: the legislature had enacted specific statutes that criminalized certain conduct of mother's toward their unborn children. Those crimes required intent and made violation only a misdemeanor. The general manslaughter statute, on the other hand, was not enacted with consideration of how it would apply to mothers who injure their unborn children resulting in death after birth. The court felt it would be anomalous to use the general manslaughter statute to convict this woman of a felony based on non-intentional conduct, when a more specific statute governing intentionally killing of her unborn child would have been just a misdemeanor. The court, in effect, said: legislature, if this is what you wanted "death of a person" to mean under these types of facts, you need to clearly tell us.

Frankly, if not sending this woman to prison because she recklessly caused an accident that injured her unborn child who ended up dying after birth is the bottom of the slippery slope, I'm perfectly happy with it.

Contrary to the misleading headline, the court did NOT hold that six-day-old babies aren't persons. It didn't even hold that six-day-old babies are not persons under the manslaughter statute. It simply held that the application of the statute to this particular set of facts was ambiguous, given the entire statutory scheme. If the legislature wants to throw mothers in the same situation in jail, all it has to do is clarify in the statute that the death of a person includes injury a child before birth that dies after the birth.

The fact that the mother wasn't convicted of the deaths of the other two adults killed in the crash seems odd. I suspect there is more going on here than is set out in the opinion.

[_Nomomo]

The prosecutor was gawdamned ass for even pursuing the case!

[_subgenius]

Yeah, because free republic.com has a sterling record of accurate headlines.

Leaving aside the notion that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, let's see where the bottom of this slope actually is:

1. A woman who was 34 weeks pregnant was injured in a car accident caused by her reckless conduct.
2. When the woman was taken to the hospital, her unborn child showed signs of fetal distress.
3. On medical advice, the woman consented to a Caesarean Section to deliver the child early.
4. The child died six days later.
5. The mother's recklessness caused the child's death.
6. If the child had died before birth, the mother would not have committed a crime.
7. If the mother had intentionally aborted the child six weeks before she was due, she would have been guilty of a misdemeanor.
8. The mother was charged with several criminal counts based on the death of her child and the deaths of two people in another car.
9. The mother was found not guilty on all charges except for the charge of felony second degree manslaughter for the death of her child.

Here's what the court ruled, on a 2-1 split:

The underlying facts and circumstances of this appeal are tragic to all parties involved. The sole issue that we reach on this appeal, however, is whether a woman can be convicted of manslaughter for reckless conduct that she engaged in while pregnant that caused injury to the fetus in utero where the child was born alive but died as a result of that injury days later (see People v Martinez, 81 NY2d 810 [1993]).2 We hold that it is evident from the statutory scheme that the legislature, in enacting Penal Law § 125.05 (1) and § 125.15 (1), did not intend to hold pregnant women criminally responsible for conduct with respect to themselves and their unborn fetuses unless such conduct is done intentionally.

Here is the problem the court confronted: the legislature had enacted specific statutes that criminalized certain conduct of mother's toward their unborn children. Those crimes required intent and made violation only a misdemeanor. The general manslaughter statute, on the other hand, was not enacted with consideration of how it would apply to mothers who injure their unborn children resulting in death after birth. The court felt it would be anomalous to use the general manslaughter statute to convict this woman of a felony based on non-intentional conduct, when a more specific statute governing intentionally killing of her unborn child would have been just a misdemeanor. The court, in effect, said: legislature, if this is what you wanted "death of a person" to mean under these types of facts, you need to clearly tell us.

Frankly, if not sending this woman to prison because she recklessly caused an accident that injured her unborn child who ended up dying after birth is the bottom of the slippery slope, I'm perfectly happy with it.

Contrary to the misleading headline, the court did NOT hold that six-day-old babies aren't persons. It didn't even hold that six-day-old babies are not persons under the manslaughter statute. It simply held that the application of the statute to this particular set of facts was ambiguous, given the entire statutory scheme. If the legislature wants to throw mothers in the same situation in jail, all it has to do is clarify in the statute that the death of a person includes injury a child before birth that dies after the birth.

The fact that the mother wasn't convicted of the deaths of the other two adults killed in the crash seems odd. I suspect there is more going on here than is set out in the opinion.

seems like a lot of words for you to simply state that when someone causes the death of a child and someone claims that the law is ambiguous on the point...free pass.

Yes, we know your actions caused the death...but did it really? is hardly an educated argument.
The court obfuscated the law with notions of "we really don't know what the law intends" because we are going to deny the circumstances as being relevant.

So, it actually did uphold that a 6 day old baby was not a person, because a "person" would have subjected the mother to the manslaughter charges. By your measure, if a mother went to get an abortion at the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic, went into labor before arrival, and then strangled the baby 6 days later - innocent! (or maybe just merits a misdemeanor fine)

[_Res Ipsa]

seems like a lot of words for you to simply state that when someone causes the death of a child and someone claims that the law is ambiguous on the point...free pass.

Yes, we know your actions caused the death...but did it really? is hardly an educated argument.
The court obfuscated the law with notions of "we really don't know what the law intends" because we are going to deny the circumstances as being relevant.

So, it actually did uphold that a 6 day old baby was not a person, because a "person" would have subjected the mother to the manslaughter charges. By your measure, if a mother went to get an abortion at the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic, went into labor before arrival, and then strangled the baby 6 days later - innocent! (or maybe just merits a misdemeanor fine)

Subby, I know you live in the conservative bubble, where anything beyond a five second soundbite simply cannot be comprehended, but no where did I say a claim of ambiguity is enough. If you want to give police officers, prosecutors, judges and juries the power to throw your ass in jail based on ambiguous statutes, you're more of a fascist than I'd ever imagined. Maybe you want to give up your constitutional right to have criminal statutes worded clearly, but I'm certainly not giving that up.

Your attempt to misrepresent the holding of the case shows, as you have done time after time, that you don't know crap about law or the legal system.

One more tip: when you make up crappy "logic" in your head, that's your logic -- not mine. Nothing in what I said above logically leads to the conclusion that a mother who strangles her six day old baby should be found "innocent." That's just your own delusion.

[_Kevin Graham]

Contrary to the misleading headline, the court did NOT hold that six-day-old babies aren't persons

What, are you suggesting Freerepublic lied?

Come on.

Say it ain't so, subgenius.

[_Res Ipsa]

Contrary to the misleading headline, the court did NOT hold that six-day-old babies aren't persons

What, are you suggesting Freerepublic lied?

Come on.

Say it ain't so, subgenius.

I believe it was me who said that. And, yes, it is so.

[_Kevin Graham]

I believe it was me who said that. And, yes, it is so.

I know, but sub is the moron who cited it, so I figured he would have some splaining to do.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...That's just your own delusion.

Ok, let us keep it simple since you are having trouble keeping up.

1.Was the "object", that most people would term a "baby", 6 days old at the time of death?
2. Does being out of the uterus and alive for 6 days qualify a baby as a person?

[_Res Ipsa]

...(snip)...That's just your own delusion.

Ok, let us keep it simple since you are having trouble keeping up.

1.Was the "object", that most people would term a "baby", 6 days old at the time of death?
2. Does being out of the uterus and alive for 6 days qualify a baby as a person?

1. Yes
2. Yes.