How Many Murder Victims at Ft. Hood?
Posted by RyftNov 13
Here is an interesting thought to ponder over. (It was something Todd Friel said on Wretched Radio that caused me to do a little research into this.) I know Mathew Hamilton over at Thoughts Out Loud will be interested in this reflection. News reports confirm that a total of 13 people were killed by accused gunman Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood, a U.S. military post in Texas. However, one of those soldiers killed was Francheska Velez, who was about two months pregnant at the time. (She was due sometime in May 2010.) For some people this raises the question: Should there be an additional count of murder?
Although pro-abortion advocates tend to answer in the negative, I think they answer much too quickly and with manifest ignorance of U.S. State and Federal legislation and court rulings beyond Roe vs. Wade. There is a law in the United States called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (18 USC 1841) which is applicable when the crime falls within Federal jurisdiction, as this case certainly does. As the Wikipedia article explains, certain offenses come under the jurisdiction of the United States government when they are committed on Federal properties (Fort Hood), against certain Federal officials and employees (Francheska Velez), and by members of the military (Nidal Hasan). In other words, this case satisfies all three criteria, which makes it inarguable that Hasan should be tried on fourteen counts of murder.
It is that fourteenth count of murder that raises further interesting thoughts. In subsection (d) of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a child in utero is defined as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” So we observe here the fetus being recognized under Federal law as a child and human being (which qualifies the crime of murder, the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought). So then, how is it that one can be a human child but not a person? Or to phrase the question differently: Why is it illegal to deprive a human child of life under the United States Code, while at the same time it is not illegal to deprive a human child of life under the Constitution?
(And isn’t it strange that United States law grants the status of ‘person’ to corporations and the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, but will not grant the status of ‘person’ to what under law is a human child?)
PDF 
3 comments
Comment by Mathew on 17 Nov 2009 at 04:36
On the first question: Yes, 14 people were killed. I then thought that perhaps, on that revelation, the charges laid on Hasan ought to be 13 counts of murder and 1 count of manslaughter, as it can be presumed that he was not aware that Ms. Velez was pregnant when he murdered her.
But then reading through the Act you posted (18 USC 1841), it seems that section (a)(2)(B)(i) suggests that knowledge (or lack thereof) of the pregnancy is irrelevant:
Simply, if you kill a pregnant woman whose unborn in turn dies, then you are accountable for two deaths and not one. (At least, that’s what I think it means. It’s getting late in my part of the world for this legal speak!)
At any rate, a good pick up on the story! Although I think we both know that the mainstream media would not likely promote that 14 were killed instead of 13.
Interesting remark on the USC and the Constitution, but I’m not knowledgeable on either of these to comment on that regard (although I would not be at all surprised to find such an inconsistency).
Comment by Ryft on 18 Nov 2009 at 20:20
From my understanding of subsection (a)(2), if one wilfully or knowingly kills a pregnant woman, then one is guilty of two counts of first degree murder; if not wilfully or knowingly, then two counts of second degree murder. This is defined under the legal doctrine of “transferred intent,” a long established principle in law, which the Unborn Victims of Violence Act extends to the child in utero. (By the way, there is no felony offence described as “manslaughter” under federal code. And even under state code in Texas, “manslaughter” is defined as second degree felony homicide. Both closely resemble the Model Penal Code.)
In the case of Hasan, the prosecution feels there is sufficient evidence of capital murder and, by provision of the state’s Prenatal Protection Act, the victim count should be 14. Moreover, by 18 USC 1841 the federal government has jurisdiction to also prosecute Hasan for 14 counts of murder in the first degree. With regard to mainstream media, they are an irrelevant distraction, in my opinion, because this is an inarguable legal fact which prosecuting attorneys should be giving attention to. As for the dual prosecution, “In cases where a murder involves both state and federal jurisdiction, the offender can be tried and punished separately for each crime without raising issues of double jeopardy” (Wikipedia).
Subsection (a)(1) states that the death of a child in utero qualifies as a separate offence, so under federal law the murder of a pregnant woman qualifies as two counts of murder. And subsection (a)(2) states that this separate offence carries the same punishment as that if it had been committed against the mother herself (i.e., the punishment due for murder is unmitigated by the child being inside the womb.) It further declares that it makes no difference whether the person knew the woman was pregnant or not, and that it makes no difference whether the person intended to cause the death of the unborn child or not. In other words, even if one has no idea the woman is pregnant and no intention of killing the child, it nevertheless counts as two separate offences. The possibility that a female of childbearing age may be pregnant is something that an assailant may not safely exclude.
Incidentally, subsection (c)(3) really pisses me off, though (q.v. “Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any woman with respect to her unborn child”) because, if I understand it correctly, it means that a pregnant woman can engage in a felony assault that results in the death of her unborn child and be safe from prosecution for first or second degree murder. What intelligent reason could there be for including this? Subsection (c)(1) and (c)(2) make sense to me and I can support them, but what the hell is the reason for (c)(3)?
Comment by Mathew on 22 Nov 2009 at 19:32
Very eloquently put, Ryft! (And thanks for the additional clarification. Legalese goes over my head most of the time.)
That illogic in subsection (c)(3) well deserves highlighting. I dare say that there is no real firm basis for this clause, other than the conflicting ‘justification’ that a baby is only a baby when it is wanted by the mother (so if she wanted it, she wouldn’t have engaged in any action that would terminate her pregnancy). I think California—and I assume many other states as well—has some such clauses in their state law along the same lines. Absurd? Hell, yes.
On a related note, this cartoon seems relevant to your opening comments (courtesy of 2secondsfaster.com):