Sick sick world what is wrong with people

[MartyFunkhouser]

I haven’t followed much of this trial but are you disagreeing that there might be a gap in (Canadian) law? (Hypothetical obviously as this is not being tried in Canada).
I’d have thought logically it doesn’t necessarily matter how old her other children were, if she was suffering severe post-natal depression and had other psychotic diagnoses, within a year of giving birth to her youngest child then the charge of infanticide could apply to all of the children’s deaths?
(Note not commenting on whether or not that is the case as I don’t have enough knowledge of these particular events, but there is a logic that in theory it should apply).
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood but I read your post as somewhat mocking the CBC piece?

I didn't even know anything about there being an infanticide provision, I see there is one here too. Its a hard one to comment on as not being a woman who has given birth and therefore also not been in the situation with post natal depression its difficult to know that mindset or how severe it gets etc.

I assume this isn't about there not being a punishment but the punishment being downgraded from murder right??

 

[robp135]

I didn't even know anything about there being an infanticide provision, I see there is one here too. Its a hard one to comment on as not being a woman who has given birth and therefore also not been in the situation with post natal depression its difficult to know that mindset or how severe it gets etc.

I assume this isn't about there not being a punishment but the punishment being downgraded from murder right??

In the Clancy case if she is found not guilty on any count she would be involuntary commitmed to a state psychiatric facility. If determined she is no longer mentally ill she would be discharged and released. They review it on an annual basis.

Seems like it will be ruled a mistrial as 1/12 jurors would not budge on a guilty verdict. Most likely outcome is that they will negotiate her being commited.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

In the Clancy case if she is found not guilty on any count she would be involuntary commitmed to a state psychiatric facility. If determined she is no longer mentally ill she would be discharged and released. They review it on an annual basis.

Seems like it will be ruled a mistrial as 1/12 jurors would not budge on a guilty verdict. Most likely outcome is that they will negotiate her being commited.

Honestly fascinating stuff and one for another day to have a look at because even learning about it this week has stunned me on so many levels.

The cultural side as well, has blown my mind

 

[thfcsteff]

You can have blanket laws in place which can cover the extremely rare cases in which someone’s mental state means that are less culpable of a crime they have committed.

It’s absurd that they have carved out a special category which does not recognize the full humanity of a child under the age of one. To then argue that it needs to be extended to include older children is absolutely depraved.

I don't think a single person could conceivably not find such crimes utterly, utterly awful.
Surely the question here is of mental health and what role that played? Frankly, anyone who did what she did has to be severely mentally ill. How you punish crimes of this heinous nature when committed by people who are deeply, deeply mentally ill is a whole other discussion.

 

[robp135]

Honestly fascinating stuff and one for another day to have a look at because even learning about it this week has stunned me on so many levels.

The cultural side as well, has blown my mind

Yes and to be clear I am not really taking issue with this case as I have not followed it closely enough to say she is guilty and should be locked away forever which is my instinctual feeling.

I am taking issue with there being such a highly specific carve out for when a mother kills their child due to post partum and that you have people arguing that it should be expanded to include more children.

 

[robp135]

I don't think a single person could conceivably not find such crimes utterly, utterly awful.
Surely the question here is of mental health and what role that played? Frankly, anyone who did what she did has to be severely mentally ill. How you punish crimes of this heinous nature when committed by people who are deeply, deeply mentally ill is a whole other discussion.

I am not seeing where the 'full humanity of a child under the age of 1' has not been recognised?

Because the protection of their life within the Canadian legal system is not equal.

What is the difference between an 11 month old and a 13 month old in these situations? And the logic put forward by "the expert" is that they should expand the law. But that is illogical because at whatever age you increase it to, you would have the same question. At 2 years of age, what is the difference between the 23 month old and the 25 month old and you keep going.

You have laws that result in changes to sentences and charges brought based on mental illness and insanity. Having a specific carve out with a dramatically reduced sentence which only applies to one type of mental illness where the victim is only under the age of 1 is sick.

 

[thfcsteff]

Because the protection of their life within the Canadian legal system is not equal.

What is the difference between an 11 month old and a 13 month old in these situations? And the logic put forward by "the expert" is that they should expand the law. But that is illogical because at whatever age you increase it to, you would have the same question. At 2 years of age, what is the difference between the 23 month old and the 25 month old and you keep going.

You have laws that result in changes to sentences and charges brought based on mental illness and insanity. Having a specific carve out with a dramatically reduced sentence which only applies to one type of mental illness where the victim is only under the age of 1 is sick.

It does seem very inconsistent. I need to look into it more TBH...