What the boyfriend did was disgusting and reprehensible, and he SHOULD be charged with a crime. But why not the girlfriend? Why isn't she being charged? Note the text in bold below- they BOTH collaborated on this TOGETHER. But only the guy is being charged with anything. Give me a (*$^&* break!!!!
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050104/detu007_1.html
Macomb County Prosecutor Announces Charges Authorized in Fetus Death
Tuesday January 4, 9:28 am ET
MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich., Jan. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Macomb County
Prosecutor Eric Smith authorized criminal charges today against a sixteen-year-old Richmond male accused of terminating his girlfriend's pregnancy with a souvenir baseball bat.
The charge, Intentional conduct against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth, is a felony punishable by up to fifteen years imprisonment.
According to Michigan State Police detectives, the youths intentionally caused the death of the fetus by striking the mother's abdomen with the twenty-two inch bat over the course of two weeks. The parents of the youths were apparently unaware of the pregnancy and the decision to abort it.
The actions of the youths first came to light when the female spoke about the series of incidents after the fact at a high school leadership conference in the upper peninsula. The conference's adult facilitator, hearing of the incidents leading to the miscarriage, contacted the State Police.
The report of the county's medical examiner indicates that the fetus was premature and not viable at the time of the miscarriage. The report lists the cause of death as blunt impact of the maternal abdomen.
Prosecutor Smith is relying on law created by the Michigan Legislature in 1999. According to that law, only the person making the intentional conduct against the pregnant individual is criminally liable. The pregnant individual herself, however complicit in the termination, is not.
The male, because of his age and lack of prior contacts with the criminal justice system, will be adjudicated in the juvenile court. If convicted, he would be subject to the jurisdiction of that court until he is twenty-one years old.
The mother, also sixteen years old, will not be charged with a crime.
Prosecutor Smith said the defendant must plead guilty as charged or face trial.
"This crime is shocking and reprehensible," he said. "I will not entertain any plea bargaining on it."
What's "shocking" is that she'll walk away from this like a total innocent, even though she was every bit as "involved" as he was. Maybe even more than the boyfriend was- it was her baby, why wasn't she protecting it?? She AGREED to have him do this multiple times, so why isn't she guilty too? Answer: Because she's the mom.
MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. (AP) - A Michigan teenager accused of causing his girlfriend's miscarriage is being charged with a felony. Authorities say a roughly six-month-old male fetus was delivered October Fourth after the 16-year-old mother allowed her boyfriend to hit her repeatedly in the abdomen with a baseball bat over the course of two weeks. The buried fetus was discovered in November. Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith says today that the 16-year-old boy from Richmond is being charged with intentional conduct against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth. Under the 19-99 Michigan law that made it a crime, only the person acting against the pregnant woman is criminally liable, while the mother is not. The charge is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, but the boy is expected to be prosecuted as a juvenile. If convicted as a juvenile, he would be subject to the jurisdiction of that court until he is 21. (Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
http://www.9and10news.com/News/Story.asp?StoryID=39616
----------------------------------
I don't feel she did get away with it only because she was a mother, it was because of the law spoken of above. The law makes sense if she was beaten against her will (most likely why it became a law in the first place), but because she did agree I don't see why they can't charge her with criminal mischief, murder, or something else. I wonder if it has to do with other laws about the baby not being born yet and it's only considered a fetus instead of a baby?
True, she will have to live with that horrible experience the rest of her life, but murder is murder and she should be held responsible for it in some other way.
It appears sick rhetoric and excuses has been written into law.
I can not fathom how anyone interpretating this law (as stated) can not see the blatant built-in bias and prejudice favoring females by holding them unaccountable for their actions and at the same time perpetuating a dual standard by holding males accountable.
I do feel empathy for this boy's stupidity. The girl was probably the more sexually aggressive in the first place and secondly the boy was no doubt following the girls instructions to bat her abdomen.
I suspect this would not even be a case had the girl enlisted one of her girl friends to baton the fetus. Additionally, I think the boy would be treated more harshly if the fetus was female.
Ok ?
"The girl was probably the more sexually aggressive in the first place and secondly the boy was no doubt following the girls instructions to bat her abdomen.
I suspect this would not even be a case had the girl enlisted one of her girl friends to baton the fetus. Additionally, I think the boy would be treated more harshly if the fetus was female."
WTF?
And what in the article leads you to believe the girl was probably more sexually agressive in the first place or that the boy was following her instructions??!?!?!?!?!
Talk about your built-in bias and prejudice!
I feel sad for both these kids. At 16, they were not mature enough to handle the situation and made some reallllly stupid chooses that will effect the rest of their lives. It is a sad situation all around.
But - if a crime was committed, he sounds like it was committed by both of these kids. They were both willing participants.
WTF, I hear ya!???!!?? That one is pretty out in left field. Hope he has no daughters!
My point was the law ...is being charged with intentional conduct against a pregnant individual resulting in miscarriage or stillbirth. Under the 19-99 Michigan law that made it a crime, only the person acting against the pregnant woman is criminally liable, while the mother is not.
And as I stated, most likely that law was created for pregnant women who were UNwillingly beaten and the baby died. I don't think it's "protecting women's rights", it's protecting a BABY's rights to live. And I think the mother in this case should be charged with the same thing, for the record.
What about the woman who recently cut the baby out of a woman's belly? http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/263217p-225301c.html She is being charged and will most likely get death or life in jail. Her husband, who obviously knew she wasn't pregnant OR gave birth, went along with it and he isn't being charged with anything, last I heard.
Hello !!
I wasn't trying to start anything or offend anyone ...just espousing the TRUTH based on observations from life experiences.
Everything I posted was practical reality and if you want to honestly and adequately enable yourselves to counsel your sons and daughters you may want to "take it to heart" and adjust your mindset.
Let's have some legitimate responses and opinions rather than attacks !
BTW, I was a 16 yr old boy at one time and I don't think any of you had that experience.
From my very, very, very limited understand of the law let me say the law was written so that when a pregnant woman was beaten and the child aborted, the assailant could be charged with murder.
In this case it sounds like the mother ASKED to be beaten so that the baby would abort. I would think that would make her part of the crime. But what do I know.
A very sad event.
nope, no experience being a man...but close to it as one can come..
LOL..
but I raised two boys..and I can tell ya, they are hornier than anything on earth..still are. Can't say the same for my daughter...
And by the way...wasn't attacking you...just can't grasp where the hell the assumptions came from.
I wouldn't say you were attacked so much as asked where in the world you came up with that stuff about the girl being more sexually aggressive. Seemed to be out of left field and pretty sexist. So what exactly lead you to believe the female in the article was more sexually aggressive??
If that it the TRUTH based on your observations, than we haven't been observing the same things. I have observed teens, both male and female, that are all different and unique. So far as sexually aggressive - I've seen it in both sexes.
And no, I was never a 16 yr old boy. So are you saying that when you were a 16 yr old boy, the 16 yr old females were sexually aggressive to you?
I was a 16 yr old girl - and I can assure you, the guys I were around were a helluva lot more sexually aggressive than I was - or my female friends. Of course there were exceptions........
But regardless, I certainly wouldn't make the claim that any particular individual was more sexually aggressive based strictly on their gender.
Oh - and the 2 teenage girls in my house. I am very open and honest with them about sex and fully expect them to come to me when they are ready to have sex to make sure they are prepared. I have even told them I do not expect them to be virgins when they get married, and that I don't even think it is a good idea........but that's a whole 'nother topic!
>I don't feel she did get away with it only because she was a
>mother, it was because of the law spoken of above.
Great, so there's a law to protect a mother when she does something like this. Splendid.
>but murder is murder and she should be held
>responsible for it in some other way.
No argument here.
Bolivar ... I think you're right or should I say half right.
The article stated "According to that law, only the person making the intentional conduct against the pregnant individual is criminally liable. The pregnant individual herself, however complicit in the termination, is not."
I suspect the prosecutor is applying "the flavor" of the statue as written.
If the word 'only' was removed from the first sentence and the second sentence was removed entirely then both persons would be held accountable for their intentional conduct against the pregnant individual (ie fetus/child). In other words, the fetus/child is not protected from the pregnant individual and this alone MAY be the catalyst for all bias and prejudice against children and fathers.
Thanks Olanna !
For sake of clarity I said observations from life experiences rather than assumptions. I also said that it was 'probable' the female was the more sexually aggressive one based on her apparent control in the relationship and on a well documented idealism that discounts the myth that males are the dominant sexual predators.
I also raised two boys. I think they were both considered the 'nude hot tub diving champs' in their high school years....hot doggin it and showing off as guys might do. My daughter was majorly under the other parents influence. Had she been under her father's influence there is a good chance she would still be a virgin today or so I would like think.
Hey Cathy !
I wouldn't say you were attacked so much as asked where in the world you came up with that stuff about the girl being more sexually aggressive. Seemed to be out of left field and pretty sexist. So what exactly lead you to believe the female in the article was more sexually aggressive??
*** I said "probably" based on wisdom that generally speaking females are far more sexually aggressive than males. This particular female appears to be substantially in control of the relationship... I guess I can't imagine any one allowing oneself to be thumped with a ball bat in the adobmen over a 2 week period unless they were in control. ***
If that it the TRUTH based on your observations, than we haven't been observing the same things. I have observed teens, both male and female, that are all different and unique. So far as sexually aggressive - I've seen it in both sexes.
*** Oh I've had the same experiences as you but probably over a much longer period of time and with observations, experiences, and commumication with both sexes of varying ages, etc ***
And no, I was never a 16 yr old boy. So are you saying that when you were a 16 yr old boy, the 16 yr old females were sexually aggressive to you?
*** Absolutely ! and 13, 14, .. 18 .. 35 ..45 .. 55 and now it is often the 75 year olds ..damn it anywho.***
I was a 16 yr old girl - and I can assure you, the guys I were around were a helluva lot more sexually aggressive than I was - or my female friends. Of course there were exceptions........
*** ah c'mon ..be honest. 16 yr old females just don't talk about it like 16 yr old males. ***
But regardless, I certainly wouldn't make the claim that any particular individual was more sexually aggressive based strictly on their gender.
*** I would and did ***
Oh - and the 2 teenage girls in my house. I am very open and honest with them about sex and fully expect them to come to me when they are ready to have sex to make sure they are prepared. I have even told them I do not expect them to be virgins when they get married, and that I don't even think it is a good idea........but that's a whole 'nother topic!
*** notta nother topic at all. Most parents (but especially fathers) fully expect and hold out hope that the daughters remain as virgins and strongly suggest the sons do as well ... I think that's called celebacy or something like that. You may have just substantiated all my posts ***
The reason NEITHER of them were charged with murder is because Michigan law doesn't recognize a fetus as an individual until it is at 21 weeks gestation. What was quoted in the article is only part of the statute.
The reason Michigan places it at 21 weeks is so that it doesn't interfere with abortion "rights".
If the fetus was that or above, she would have been held liable as well. Thanks to the state covering their a** on abortion, she gets away, and he gets felony assault on her - no charge gets applied to the fact that the fetus was miscarried due to both of them being idiots.
A woman can do what she likes to her body and her unborn child (abort it), even if she has another person harm the fetus, no crime is committed on her part.
However if the harm is done without the mother's consent they can be charged with assault or murder (ie, Lacy Peterson).
Not saying I agree...
I had a friend that was pregnant and used to punch herself in the abdomen and have her bf do it and anyone else that would to try to lose the baby. I did not report it, but I did cease contact with her.
She had the baby and a couple more from other fathers from what I understand. I think it happens more than we want to know.
I would not assume an individual was more sexually aggressive strictly based on sex.....or at least, I would try hard not to because I try to avoid stereotyping.
BUT if we are going to speak in generalities, I would think that males tended to be more sexually aggressive than females. But that is strictly my opinion, I have not researched the topic. I don't know, but I really think the majority of people would tend to feel that way.
Oh - and so far as when I was 16 - oh yeah, we females absolutely talked about it and thought about it. But that doesn't fall under what I consider "sexually aggressive"!
And yes, I agree - I think most parents hope and encourage their kids to remain virgins. I just don't happen to be one of those parents!
Have a good one!!
I guess I can't imagine any one allowing oneself to be thumped with a ball bat in the adobmen over a 2 week period unless they were in control
Isn't that the M.O. for most battered people? They stay for years and allow themselves to be beaten. They are definately not the ones in control - they are being controlled. Because we know so little about this case in particular, I don't think it's fair to assume that he or she was the one in control in their relationship. It's possible they were both equally as guilty and equally as dumb and as equally in control!
double post deleted