It’s long been a rule of thumb that any law named after someone is destined to be a bad law.  The reason is simple: Politicians react to the public outcry of a tragic anomaly by putting on their “tough on crime” hat and passing a law, much the way the Lil’ Rascals put on a play.  In fact, exactly the same way. 

These laws are enacted without anyone considering the unintended consequences, or even the need, so that their sponsors can engage in hyperbolic rhetoric about how they’ve saved society from some plague of atrocities that never existed until this one particular circumstance.  No politician can vote against the law, since that would mean that Sean, Bill or Rush will tell their fans that the politician is in favor of atrocities, which is never good for re-election purposes.

And so the case was made for Laci and Conner’s Law.  You remember, there was a television show all about them, called the Scott Peterson Trial, starring Mark Geragos as Bozo the Lawyer.

Via Bashman, Micheal Doyle at the McClatchy Newspapers decided to follow up to see how effective this law has been in curbing the federal plague of murdering the unborn.  The demand for such a law was clear:

Congress commemorated the slain California woman by passing the controversial Laci and Conner’s Law and creating a new federal crime of killing an unborn child.

Supporters said the measure would fill a law enforcement loophole.

“Police and prosecutors . . . have shared the grief of families, but have so often been unable to seek justice for the full offense,” President Bush said at the time.

While some might question whether enactment of criminal laws are the right way to “commemorate” people, no matter how tragic the circumstances of their death, politicians are more finely attuned to the needs of the People than someone like me, and certainly the President of the United States would know from whence he speaks.  When President Bush says that justice has “so often” been thwarted, then it must be so.

So let’s consider how effective this law has been.

So far, Bureau of Justice Statistics databases don’t show any federal prosecutions under the law, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Supporters of the law say they haven’t heard of any.

None?  Not one?  Maybe the mere threat of prosecution posed by this law put a stop to this plague?

But counting prosecutions isn’t necessarily the only measure of legislative impact.

“We think there are several types of value to this law,” said Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion advocacy group. “One is deterrence. Hopefully, people will take this into account when they beat up on a woman.”

There we go.  After all, most impassioned criminals hesitate just long enough to consider whether their act of violence toward a pregnant woman will cause the Laci and Connor Law to be invoked, then withdraw in their moment of calm reflection.

Note that there are two rather large problems standing in the way of the effective use of this law.  First, murders are almost invariably state crimes, not federal.  Second, when the perp murders the pregnant woman, that’s usually cause enough to prosecute hard.  These are how it should be, and there was never a need for yet another law, except as a promotional tool for those national politicians who feel sad and lonely that they don’t get to create enough crimes to make them heroes to their constituents.

But just in case we ever need it, we have a law on the books.  Who does it harm if it’s never actually used?