Well that was clear as mud.
Probably just as well!
For the record, I do agree that the death penalty is inefficacious as a deterrent.
In this case, the law being applied seems to be specifically designed to assuage public "outrage" rather than discourage criminality - although I'm struggling to imagine what public outrage could genuinely result from this poor woman's actions - save the anger I might feel at the waste of time, effort and money involved in prosecuting such a case, but I'm far, far away from Ohio so that's probably none of my business.
In any case, I guess the question is, should laws be used for the purpose of assuaging public outrage? And if so, where do you draw the line between genuine and reasonable public outrage (such as might result if somebody did deliberately and publicly mutilate a real human corpse) and offending a few people's sensitivities?
How do you measure outrage?
The law in question here apparently distinguishes between <<treatment of “a human corpse in a way that the person knows would outrage” either “reasonable family sensibilities,” resulting in a misdemeanor, or “community sensibilities,” resulting in a felony charge.>>
So its not really the gravity of the act, but rather what you "know" would be the "reasonable" response of either a "family" or your "community".
So not only do they have to measure outrage, but they also have to somehow quantify "reasonable" sensibilities and then show that the defendant "knew" the "measure" of outrage and family and community sensibilities...I doubt she could have been aware of any of that sitting in the bathroom having a spontaneous miscarriage.
As someone already remarked, the law is an an animal of the horse family, which is typically smaller than a horse and has longer ears and a braying call.
