Ahh, de poor little girl was distraught.

georgieporgy

Fresh news from Canada, one of the most civilised countries on earth. (ie,They think Gadaffy is a monster)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/judge-rules-no-jail-time-for-infanticide-because-canada-accepts-abortion.html

alex73

Abortion in the back door

Keaton

That story is confusing. I think Canada already has a liberal abortion regime, and the judge was merely saying society would understand as they allow abortion and what you did was basically abortion, so...

Did I read it wrong?

AnamGlas

Regardless of whether the child was inside or outside the womb, it's still murder. Disgrace.

Keaton

EDMONTON, Alberta, September 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

What???

tenchi-fan

Sounds like a post-term abortion to me. :rolleyes:

JimiTime

"But the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that the murder conviction was unreasonable and substituted one of infanticide..................................The maximum sentence for infanticide is five years, but Veit said prison time is rarely handed out for such offences. "

So killing an infant, is somehow less than murder??

This is shocking, absolutely shocking. Whats to say she wont conceive again, and repeat? What a horrid, warped reasoning these people have. I'm all for mercy, but my goodness, this reasoning is absolutely ludicrous.

Zombrex

It is not really anything to do with abortion. The judge ruled that she was guilty of infanticide, not murder, because the judge accepted the psychological profile that she was in a state of extreme delusion and stress during the time of the birth.

This evidence was rejected by the jury and the judge does not think that was right.

Now whether you agree with that or not (I have my doubts that the judge doing that though I am told by friends who work with people with it that post natal depression is a real thing and can be utterly debilitating), really the abortion aspect seems to be a comment that the judge said that is being ceased on by Christian groups without much context to make this out as if the judge has some how just legalized post birth abortions.

That is not in anyway what has happened.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not really anything to do with abortion.

I read the report elsewhere which didn't include the judges line about abortion. The line about abortion, does bring abortion into the equation though. If she said that due to having no law against abortion shows sympathy for the mother, then proceeds to lessen the charge (A very confusing scenario for me. Infanticide not being murder, and classed as a lesser crime ) then it does have something to do with abortion.

The judge ruled that she was guilty of infanticide, not murder, because the judge accepted the psychological profile that she was in a state of extreme delusion and stress during the time of the birth.

the abortion aspect seems to be a comment that the judge said that is being ceased on by Christian groups without much context to make this out as if the judge has some how just legalized post birth abortions.

That is not in anyway what has happened.

I don't think thats whats been said. It seems that the reasoning the judge used is being seized upon, because the reasoning behind allowing abortion was used by said judge to sympathise with the woman in question. IMO, thats a very real issue.

i don't know how this woman was raised, and I'm all for mercy under certain circumstances, but the reasoning used is worrying.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

I read the report elsewhere which didn't include the judges line about abortion. The line about abortion, does bring abortion into the equation though. If she said that due to having no law against abortion shows sympathy for the mother, then proceeds to lessen the charge (A very confusing scenario for me. Infanticide not being murder, and classed as a lesser crime ) then it does have something to do with abortion.

The charge was not lessened. Infanticide was a lesser included charge. It is completely separate to abortion. It is unfortunate that the judge mentioned abortion and I think the grounds for having an offense / defense of infanticide stand by themselves.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think thats whats been said. It seems that the reasoning the judge used is being seized upon, because the reasoning behind allowing abortion was used by said judge to sympathise with the woman in question. IMO, thats a very real issue.

i don't know how this woman was raised, and I'm all for mercy under certain circumstances, but the reasoning used is worrying.

I tihnk this is another example of the law trying to take acount of the fact that humans are not perfect. Clearly people that are against abortion will jump upon the use of the word abortion, but that does not nessecarily mean abortion was a prime reason for the decision.

MrP

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

The charge was not lessened. Infanticide was a lesser included charge.

Well she went from Murder, to infanticide (Again, i stand confused as to how infanticide is a lesser crime)

It is completely separate to abortion.

Well on a moral level they are very closely related, but I'm sure we disagree on that. I agree that in the case of the Canadian courts, i don't see why abortion was brought into it. Thats the thing though, the abortion law seemed to have formed part of the judges reasoning.

I tihnk this is another example of the law trying to take acount of the fact that humans are not perfect.

And the very small account of her upbringing may well have lead to an appeal for leniency. If she was truly terrified of her parents etc. I know on such a basis I would be torn. I just find the reasoning the judge seemed to use was retarded, and worrying.

Clearly people that are against abortion will jump upon the use of the word abortion, but that does not nessecarily mean abortion was a prime reason for the decision.

The fact that it DOES seem to have formed part of the judges reasoning though is worrying. TBH, I think the most shocking revelation in this for me, is how there is a differentiation between infanticide and murder in terms of law. I could maybe see a differntiation in the scale of infanticide being classed as the more heinous of the two, but the lesser? *scratches head*

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I read the report elsewhere which didn't include the judges line about abortion. The line about abortion, does bring abortion into the equation though. If she said that due to having no law against abortion shows sympathy for the mother, then proceeds to lessen the charge (A very confusing scenario for me. Infanticide not being murder, and classed as a lesser crime ) then it does have something to do with abortion.

To be honest I don't understand what the judge is saying either with relation to the abortion, though I would be cautious about reading extracts from a Catholic news source to find out. The Catholic blogs and newspapers certainly seem to be claiming the judge is approving of killing your infant as a form of abortion, which I think is unlikely.

As an aside infanticide is just manslaughter but for infants as far as I know, ie killing without the criteria necessary to classify the killing as a murder. It isn't that if you murder a child it is a lesser crime than murdering an adult.

JimiTime wrote: »

i don't know how this woman was raised, and I'm all for mercy under certain circumstances, but the reasoning used is worrying.

I don't think the judge is saying it was infanticide for any reason other than that the woman was insane at the time. Again I don't really follow what point the judge is making with the abortion comment.

Again I could be wrong. It would be nice if we could get the actual judgement rather than relying on 3rd hand reporting.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Well she went from Murder, to infanticide (Again, i stand confused as to how infanticide is a lesser crime)

Infanticde is a lesser included charge in cases like this. It is lesser in the sense the the actus reus for murder is there, a child was killed, but there is something present that means the full culpability for murder is not present.

It is kind of a defence against murder, similar to loss of control (used to be provocation... kind of), diminished responibility and to a lesser extend insanity.

It can be difficult to get your head round, but they are not really saying it is a lesser crime, but as recognition of himan weakness they are say that the culpability required for a murder conviction is not there.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well on a moral level they are very closely related, but I'm sure we disagree on that. I agree that in the case of the Canadian courts, i don't see why abortion was brought into it. Thats the thing though, the abortion law seemed to have formed part of the judges reasoning.

Clearly I don't agree. An abortion is a willful and deliberate act. Infanticide may be deliberate but it might be carried out by a person who is not fully in control of their actions. And this is why the offence / defence of infanticide exists, just as insanity, DR, automatism and to a lesser extent loss of control, takes into account that sometime people are fully in control of their actions.

JimiTime wrote: »

And the very small account of her upbringing may well have lead to an appeal for leniency. If she was truly terrified of her parents etc. I know on such a basis I would be torn. I just find the reasoning the judge seemed to use was retarded, and worrying.

I have been unable to find a case report for this, so can't really comment in an informed way on this. Additionally, we don't know what evidence was presented. The other thing to remember is that everyone reacts differently to circumstances.

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact that it DOES seem to have formed part of the judges reasoning though is worrying. TBH, I think the most shocking revelation in this for me, is how there is a differentiation between infanticide and murder in terms of law. I could maybe see a differntiation in the scale of infanticide being classed as the more heinous of the two, but the lesser? *scratches head*

I think you are getting this slightly wrong. Were it not for the fact that the requirements of infanticide were met, it would be murder. In this case infanticide is kind of like a defence to murder. But for the defence, it would be murder. In a similar way to loss of control being a defence for murder. If you are charged with murder and successfully argue loss of control then you are found guilty of manslaughter. In this case she was charged with murder and successfully argued the defence of infanticide and therefore was not convicted of murder. The name infanticide is somewhat emotive. In this context infanticide does not simply mean the killing of a child under 1 year of age. it is the killing of a child under one year of age when the mother, and it can only be the mother, in suffering from a mental problem.

It could be called anything, it just hapopens to be called that.

MrP

georgieporgy

This puts a face to the young lady.

Some news reports are referring to the killing as a fourth trimester abortion.

Now if a catholic priest were to strangle a newborn infant would he get off so lightly? :rolleyes:

28064212

georgieporgy wrote: »

Fresh news from Canada, one of the most civilised countries on earth. (ie,They think Gadaffy is a monster)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/judge-rules-no-jail-time-for-infanticide-because-canada-accepts-abortion.html

The judge never mentioned abortion.

Veit said she feels Canadians "understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."

"Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant's death, especially at the hands of the infant's mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother," said Veit.

Source: http://www.wetaskiwintimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3298693

Incredibly biased reporting from an anti-abortion site

Cybercelesta

28064212 wrote: »

The judge never mentioned abortion.

Source: http://www.wetaskiwintimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3298693

Incredibly biased reporting from an anti-abortion site

It doesn't alter the fact that an infant was murdered, and the mother got off scot free!

28064212

Cybercelesta wrote: »

It doesn't alter the fact that an infant was murdered, and the mother got off scot free!

Also a lie. It could be argued that she got a light sentence, but she most definitely did not get off "scot free"

georgieporgy

Gee, it's beginning to look like proabortion people are in favour of infanticide. (provided of course you can find an expert to certify the mother is a bit stressed out)

28064212

georgieporgy wrote: »

Gee, it's beginning to look like proabortion people are in favour of infanticide. (provided of course you can find an expert to certify the mother is a bit stressed out)

Your entire thread is shown up to be crap so you just start throwing random accusations at people you don't like?

Ickle Magoo

A bit stressed out?

Google postnatal psychosis...

The title of this thread and the sheer ignorance expressed in some of the other posts is quite staggeringly unchristian. Do you think the judge acted on a whim? She just told the courts she was a bit stressed out and they threw the case out? :rolleyes:

Godge

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A bit stressed out?

Google postnatal psychosis...

The title of this thread and the sheer ignorance expressed in some of the other posts is quite staggeringly unchristian. Do you think the judge acted on a whim? She just told the courts she was a bit stressed out and they threw the case out? :rolleyes:

I am glad that I am not the only one to be offended, outraged and upset by the title of this thread having read the link. The lack of charity, sympathy and humanity in the thread and the op beggar belief. This is then repeated several times throughout the thread. It is not enough to say this is unChristian. Christians set a standard of behaviour for themselves that is far above the sentiment expressed in this thread. No dignified respectful human would comment in such a way about another human.

Here is a link to another factual reporting of the case.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110909/alberta-mom-suspended-sentence-110909/

Extensive detail on the case not on the reaction of anti-abortionists to the case.

From the details I have read in that account and others online, it is clear that this is a tragic case, a mother in an extreme situation pushed to the limit. The issues of parental pressure, traumatic birth, pre and post-natal depression are obvious factors in a killing such as this. These were also supported by expert medical evidence. A verdict of manslaughter (or infanticide) rather than murder is quite appropriate

Given the factors surrounding the killing, I am surprised that any court gave a life sentence with no possibility of parole for ten years. Just think of the Wayne O'Donoghue case a few years back where he got four years for a killing that was much more serious given the circumstances.

It is not unusual for a sentence such as this to be suspended where the person has been waiting six years for a final decision and where there have been periods spent in jail already and other periods of time under effective house arrest.

As for the deluded who are trying to bring abortion into this case, what planet are you living on. There is no link with abortion.

georgieporgy wrote: »

Gee, it's beginning to look like proabortion people are in favour of infanticide. (provided of course you can find an expert to certify the mother is a bit stressed out)

This is the comment of an immature child.

There is a need for a rational debate around the issues of mental health and murder/manslaughter and how you determine which is which. But this is not the place to have it where a provocative thread title and misleading op are just trying to start a row for the sake of it over the completely different issue of abortion.

georgieporgy

Is messengercide a word? And if it is, who would be in favour?

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

Gee, it's beginning to look like proabortion people are in favour of infanticide. (provided of course you can find an expert to certify the mother is a bit stressed out)

Gee you apparently haven't read a single post in this thread :rolleyes:

This case has nothing to do with abortion bar a few odd comments by the judge that were not justifying the sentencing.

- Woman gets pregnant and has baby.
- Woman kills baby.
- Woman is considered suffering from post natal psychosis when doing this by the judge.
- Woman is sentenced to infanticide rather than murder since the above rules out a murder charge, and is sentenced to 3 years in jail.
- Woman has already served that time in prison while awaiting trials and appeals so is released.

Where is the abortion?

The only thing people seem to be objecting to here is the anti-abortion groups trying to manipulate this tragic situation for political gain.

JimiTime

Godge wrote: »

As for the deluded who are trying to bring abortion into this case, what planet are you living on. There is no link with abortion.

IF it has been reported acurately in the original article, then it was the judge who brought abortion into the reasoning. So thats not delusion, its just an opinion based on an article.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

IF it has been reported acurately in the original article, then it was the judge who brought abortion into the reasoning. So thats not delusion, its just an opinion based on an article.

Nowhere in the original article does it claim that the judge said anything about abortion. The article quotes the judge accurately. The author then goes totally off the rails and links it to abortion.

The reporting is accurate, the opinion is not

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I would be cautious about reading extracts from a Catholic news source to find out.

As would I, so I'm just giving my view on the assumption that its not a crock.

The Catholic blogs and newspapers certainly seem to be claiming the judge is approving of killing your infant as a form of abortion, which I think is unlikely.

What I have taken from the article, is that it is said that due to the fact that abortion is legal, that Canada sympathises with the mother (i resent that in itself, as I don't like the implication.) As for the spin about it translating to the judge approving the killing, well I certainly don't see that in the text. IF the judge mentioned abortion in the alledged context, then it was extremely cack-minded.

As an aside infanticide is just manslaughter but for infants as far as I know, ie killing without the criteria necessary to classify the killing as a murder. It isn't that if you murder a child it is a lesser crime than murdering an adult.

Actually I'm coming to an understanding here. The 'cide' in terms like infanticide, regicide, genocide etc are simply descriptions of what has taken place, i.e. An infant, king or race has been killed. It doesn't deal with motive etc. Ok, that makes more sense to me now.

I don't think the judge is saying it was infanticide for any reason other than that the woman was insane at the time. Again I don't really follow what point the judge is making with the abortion comment.

Again, if the report is to be believed, then it seemed that she used the fact that Canada allowed abortion as a reason to sympathise with the mother. Again, that seems retarded. I do wonder if this is an accurate portrayal, but if it is, its worrying.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Nowhere in the original article does it claim that the judge said anything about abortion. The article quotes the judge accurately. The author then goes totally off the rails and links it to abortion.

The reporting is accurate, the opinion is not

the Article wrote:

An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

So again, on the basis or the article, abortion was brought into the reasoning, so I stand by my initial dressing down of your accusation against some in this thread.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

IF the judge mentioned abortion in the alledged context, then it was extremely cack-minded.

The judge did not. The original quote is in the article in the OP, every news link posted since, and posted directly in this thread (post 15):

Veit said she feels Canadians "understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."

"Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant's death, especially at the hands of the infant's mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother," said Veit.

There is nothing about abortion in there. The only source for abortion being in any way relevant is the opinion in the biased original article

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

So again, on the basis or the article, abortion was brought into the reasoning, so I stand by my initial dressing down of your accusation against some in this thread.

You left out the most important part of the paragraph you quoted:

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

More opinion from a biased source

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

The judge did not. The original quote is in the article in the OP, every news link posted since, and posted directly in this thread (post 15):


There is nothing about abortion in there. The only source for abortion being in any way relevant is the opinion in the biased original article

The quote is preceeded by, 'According to Judge Veit, Canada's lack of an abortion law indicates....'. So IF its to be believed, it is saying that the quote was given in this context. If this is reported inaccurately, the fair enough, but it certainly reports that the quote was given in the context of abortion.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

The quote is preceeded by, 'According to Judge Veit, Canada's lack of an abortion law indicates....'. So IF its to be believed, it is saying that the quote was given in this context. If this is reported inaccurately, the fair enough, but it certainly reports that the quote was given in the context of abortion.

It is not, the anti-abortionist's quote is put in that context. Veit's actual quotes contain no mention of abortion

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

You left out the most important part of the paragraph you quoted:

More opinion from a biased source

You just added that bit about Jim Hughes yourself It doesn't have that in the article

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

You just added that bit about Jim Hughes yourself It doesn't have that in the article

end of paragraph 2

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

You just added that bit about Jim Hughes yourself It doesn't have that in the article

Eh, yes it does...end of the 9th sentence down.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

You just added that bit about Jim Hughes yourself It doesn't have that in the article

I disagree

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

It is not, the anti-abortionist's quote is put in that context. Veit's actual quotes contain no mention of abortion

Really?

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates (remember my earlier point to you, this line has basically said that the proceeding quote is said in this context)that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.



I'm sorry, but if we are presuming that the article is accurate, then it certainly indicates that the judge brought abortion into the reasoning.

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

I disagree

Are you for real? You took a line from a different part of the article quoting Jim Hughes, and tacked it on to a line quoting the judge? Cop on will ye.

Ickle Magoo

According to other article what the judge said was

Veit said she feels Canadians "understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.

"Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant's death, especially at the hands of the infant's mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother," said Veit.

Emphasis mine, I think the anti-abortion lobby have just seized the bits they think will make the story to fit their agenda and run with it...with absolutely no interest in accurate reporting.

JimiTime

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Eh, yes it does...end of the 9th sentence down.

Yes, it has 'said Jim Hughes' after the quote attributed to him. It doesn't have it after the quote attributed to the judge like 28064212 said. 28064212 made a mistake and thought 'Said Jim Hughes' was at the end of Judge Veits alledged quotes.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Are you for real? You took a line from a different part of the article quoting Jim Hughes, and tacked it on to a line quoting the judge? Cop on will ye.

Apologies, mea culpa, I misread the quote and thought it was the earlier one.

JimiTime wrote: »

Really?

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates (remember my earlier point to you, this line has basically said that the proceeding quote is said in this context)that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

I'm sorry, but if we are presuming that the article is accurate, then it certainly indicates that the judge brought abortion into the reasoning.

Without any direct quote. The opinion part of the article put it in that context

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Apologies, mea culpa, I misread the quote and thought it was the earlier one.

No problem. Thought you were being a chancer. I have to stop being such a cynic:)

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

According to other article what the judge said was



Emphasis mine, I think the anti-abortion lobby have just seized the bits they think will make the story to fit their agenda and run with it...with absolutely no interest in accurate reporting.

I don't know, I had a look at a few other articles and she did write

In her judgment, the judge rejected arguments from the Crown that the single father and the grandparent also face "the same stresses of the mind" as a mother who kills her own baby.

The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support," she writes.

Ickle Magoo

And yet in articles I'm reading she says:

"But Canadians also grieve for the mother," she said. "This is a classic infanticide case -- killing a newborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported."

I wonder who's transcribing and who's copying other articles...

maybe she is saying one thing and writing another, or just being quoted out of context on the writing

PDN

I certainly disagree with treating infanticide as somehow being different from murder.

Having said that, I find the OP to be deeply disturbing (and less than Christian) in the way in which it mocks and belittles someone suffering from a psychiatric condition.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I certainly disagree with treating infanticide as somehow being different from murder.

I felt exactly the same, but Mr Pudding and Zombra were saying that the whole 'infanticide' thing is merely descriptive, as in, 'The infant was killed'. Murder takes account of motive. So infanticide is to an infant, what manslaughter is to an adult. Which certainly makes sense of the context.

I still don't feel comfortable calling the purposeful killing of another as anything but murder. In this case, there is absolutely no doubt that it was murder, and it should be called as such. An appeal for mercy can be made of course, but just because someone is not in their right mind, does not remove the fact that they intentionally killed someone IMO. IMO, lessening the charge gives the rights over to the killer, whereas keeping it at murder and allowing for mercy based on circumstance keeps the rights with the court. I.E. A lower sentence is a mercy rather than an entitlement.

Godge

JimiTime wrote: »

I felt exactly the same, but Mr Pudding and Zombra were saying that the whole 'infanticide' thing is merely descriptive, as in, 'The infant was killed'. Murder takes account of motive. So infanticide is to an infant, what manslaughter is to an adult. Which certainly makes sense of the context.

I still don't feel comfortable calling the purposeful killing of another as anything but murder. In this case, there is absolutely no doubt that it was murder, and it should be called as such. An appeal for mercy can be made of course, but just because someone is not in their right mind, does not remove the fact that they intentionally killed someone IMO. IMO, lessening the charge gives the rights over to the killer, whereas keeping it at murder and allowing for mercy based on circumstance keeps the rights with the court. I.E. A lower sentence is a mercy rather than an entitlement.

You are entitled to hold the opinion that the judge in this case got it wrong and that you believe it should have been murder. That is an arguable view given that it took two hearings and two appeals to reach the final verdict. But it is only an opinion.

However, you cannot make the statement in bold, that there is absolutely no doubt that it is murder. What can be stated as fact is that following several judicial considerations, the final court ruling found that the killing fell short of murder and was classified as a lesser crime equivalent to manslaughter and that the person convicted received a sentence that the judge felt was commensurate with the circumstances of the killing and the subsequent judicial process. Now, further detail may allow us to expand but those are the facts as known from the various links.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

I felt exactly the same, but Mr Pudding and Zombra were saying that the whole 'infanticide' thing is merely descriptive, as in, 'The infant was killed'. Murder takes account of motive. So infanticide is to an infant, what manslaughter is to an adult. Which certainly makes sense of the context.

I still don't feel comfortable calling the purposeful killing of another as anything but murder. In this case, there is absolutely no doubt that it was murder, and it should be called as such. An appeal for mercy can be made of course, but just because someone is not in their right mind, does not remove the fact that they intentionally killed someone IMO. IMO, lessening the charge gives the rights over to the killer, whereas keeping it at murder and allowing for mercy based on circumstance keeps the rights with the court. I.E. A lower sentence is a mercy rather than an entitlement.

This is where you havr to try to take the emotion out of law, and it is difficult. What she did was murder, but the state recognises that in some circumstances culpabilty is reduced, so you have a defence to murder.

These types of defences are neccesary in states where to are mandatory life sentences for murder. it may seem like a bit of a faff, but it is the only way to get round a sticky problem.

It is an acceptance that not all murders are the same, and not all murders have the same culpability.

Of course you are free to call it murder if you like, but the fact of the matter is that for a killing to be murder in the legal sense, there must be an unlawfull killing and the person who carried out the act which caused the death must have intended to cause the death or really serious harm, or at the very least have know that death or really serious harm was a virtual certainty. Due to her state of mind she did not have the required mens rea, or guilty mind for murder. Because she was not fully in control of herself she is deemed to have been unable to form the required mens rea.

So, once you establish that a person is not fully culpable for the killing where does that leave you? if you have a mandatory life sentence for murder and any unlawful killing is deemed to be murder, then you have to give life in prision to anyone found quilty. This raised a number of problems. 1) You may put people in prision that really should not be there.
2) You may end up having people go free becuase the jury is unwilling to convict for murder, because the beleive the person was not fully culpable, but they would have convicted them of a lesser charge.
3) Unfair labelling. I suspect you might not be too bother about this, but it is a big issue. Take, for example, a battered wife who has been abused for years and finally loses control and kills her abuser. Being called a murderer is kind of like a final insult.

So, for these reasons, amongst other things, we have these defences. They may be slightly unpalatable when applied to certain cases, but they serve a purpose.

MrP

georgieporgy

Edited by Moderator
Please note, posting an individual's MySpace or Facebook page in a thread like this is totally inappropriate.

georgieporgy

georgieporgy wrote: »

Edited by Moderator
Please note, posting an individual's MySpace or Facebook page in a thread like this is totally inappropriate.

Sorry! Didn't realise that.

28064212

MrPudding wrote: »

This is where you havr to try to take the emotion out of law, and it is difficult. What she did was murder, but the state recognises that in some circumstances culpabilty is reduced, so you have a defence to murder.

That's not how it works. Manslaughter is not murder with reduced culpability. Manslaughter and murder are two different things. Murder is defined very specifically in the law. From Canadian law:

...where a count charges murder and the evidence proves manslaughter or infanticide but does not prove murder, the jury may find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter or infanticide, but shall not on that count find the accused guilty of any other offence.

Murder is a legal term, and under Canadian law, she did not commit murder.