We can make only some comment about your question, that do not form a real answer ...
Consider for simplicity only the "sub-clause" :
Capital murder is the premeditated or non-premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of abduction, robbery, rape, attempted rape, forcible sodomy or attempted forcible sodomy
First of all, it is a definition and the logical structure of definitions is not analyzed by propositional logic.
With proposistional logic, we can "formalize" it as :
- Capital murder is the premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of abduction
or
- Capital murder is the non-premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of abduction
or
- Capital murder is the premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of robbery
or
- Capital murder is the non-premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of robbery
or ...
As you said in your comment, it is of the form :
p1∨p2∨...∨pn, with n=12.
What we can say about it ? Basically, we have that pi ⊢ p1∨p2∨...∨pn, that is, establishing that we have a "case" in the list, we can conclude that "capital murder" applies to it.
If we move to predicate logic we are defining a predicate :
Capital(x) iff Premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of Abduction(x) or Non-Premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of Abduction(x) or ...
What we have to note is the "role" of the negation : the "predicate" NPA(x) is not the negation of PA(x).
When we say that P(x) ∨ not-P(x) we are saying that, for every "object" x in the universe of discourse, P holds of it or not, which is true.
But in our case, we cannot assume that, for any "action" x, it is the case that it is a "Premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of Abduction" or it is a "Non-Premeditated murder of any individual in the commission of Abduction", because it is not true that every "action" which is not a case of "Premeditated murder ..." is a case of "Non-Premeditated murder..."
