A Case of Infanticide Normalization?
As readers of Secondhand Smoke know, I have been warning for some time that infanticide is in the process of being normalized in the USA and around the world. It is in this context that I found a judge's decision to dismiss a murder charge so potentially disturbing. Apparently a woman gave birth at 32 weeks gestation and threw the baby in the dumpster. The autopsy reported that the child had oxygen in his lungs and thus concluded, that the baby was born alive. But the judge dismissed at a very preliminary stage of the case, based--according to the story, which is all I know--on evidence that premature still born infants can have oxygen in their lungs and a finding that the woman in question did not have the requisite intent to commit murder.
But isn't that for a jury to decide? I am not prejudging this case, but it is extraordinary for a judge to dismiss a prosecution at this early stage when there is evidence that could support a guilty verdict. Thus, I worry that what might be at play here is a judge deciding that since the woman could have had an abortion, and since the baby was premature, and since there is contradictory evidence about whether the baby was born alive, why ruin her life? I could be wrong, of course, but it strikes me that this could be a subliminal case of the normalization of infanticide at work.
The DA has refiled the case--which is also unusual in this kind of situation--meaning that a different judge will take a look. It will be interesting to see what transpires.
Labels: Infanticide Normalization
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:06 AM
20 Comments
20 Comments:
I think your suspicions are well-founded, Wesley. And it's profoundly upsetting to be seeing this girl treated as a victim in the case. If she were innocent, couldn't she have taken her child's body to the authorities or to a hospital herself? Why are we supposed to feel so sorry for her as having suffered a "nightmare"?
Btw, does anyone have an update on the Hialeah case where witnesses saw the live infant placed into a zipped bio-hazard bag? That one was even worse, because there was no doubt the child was born alive. The police very much wanted charges filed there, but it looked like perhaps they would not be because the child was so premature. The prosecutors were waiting to see if the child was "viable" before deciding to file charges. A _very_ bad precedent, because a non-viable child can still be born alive and actively murdered, and should then be protected by law.
The child may have been live born but died from hypothermia, especially if no trauma was found. Then mom may have thrown it out since it was dead.
These moms are frequently in denial and confused. And if the baby had no sign of trauma, she may have just let it sit there and die, not kill it.
A while back, Mtraven provided a link to an article about criminal justice and infanticide. I printed it up and read it, although I think I threw it out so can't provide you with the citation.
Anyway, the article followed the cases of many similar women in Chicago around 1900. In many cases, the judges were lenient on women who killed/discarded their babies within the first 24 hours, but were very harsh if the women did so after 2 hours.
Although I understand what you're saying, I don't think it's new.
correction:
within the first 24 hours AFTER BIRTH, but were very harsh if the women did so after the FIRST 24 hours.
Royale: Of Course it's not new. Ancient Romans used to expose disabled infants and pretend that they weren't killing them.
But infanticide, which was thoroughly discredited after WW II, is now making a comeback as a perceived legitimate act. My point is that we must resist this normalization.
Infanticide normalization? Perhaps.
Or, you're over-simplifying a judge's mercy in a jurisdiction that I'm sure you aren't familiar with.
Royale, I haven't researched this. But what form did those 1900 judges' "leniency" take? This guy threw the case out _altogether_. I'm not denying that even in Western society there's been leniency towards women who abandon their children. But the little I've seen about this seems to indicate that the leniency meant a _lesser sentence_ than would otherwise have been given, not dismissing the case and letting the woman off without a conviction for anything at all. This seems to me a new level in Christian-era Western society. I don't include here non-Western or ancient civilizations.
(Apparently in Scotland and possibly in England, the woman could be convicted of murder and executed in the 1700's if her child just disappeared after birth, even if no body was found and it was possible the child was still alive. They had a "guilty until proven innocent" rule in those cases. I'm not applauding this but just saying that it runs as far as possible in the opposite direction from throwing out the case.)
Wrong again, Royale. I know LA well. I lived there for the first 42 years of my life and practiced law there.
Moreover, it is not the judge's job to provide "mercy" at that point in a criminal prosecution. Mercy comes at the end of a case or from the action of the executive (governor or president, as the case might be). Indeed, if the judge was showing mercy to the mother, it was to act as if the potential homicide of a born human being mattered less in this case than in other cases of homicide. Or to put it another way, it was to diminish the seriousness of infanticide.
Wesley, I'll defer to your knowledge of LA criminal procedure.
But I still think you're reading too much into this. Society is conflicted about abortion, generally. Judges and juries are conflicted, including how much punishment or mercy to give to mothers in situations like this. Put 12 jurors in a room and you might get 23 opinions.
Maybe the judge thought she was under intense emotional distress, maybe the facts fit manslaughter better.
I don't know what was in the judge's mind, but I sure won't acuse him (or her) of normalizing infanticide without at least, say...reading the transcript? That might help.
But if it is case of the judge jumping procedure, then I'll let the prosecution appeal. If it's upheld, then I suppose the procedure was proper, even if you don't like the result.
I didn't mean to imply it was an INTENTIONAL normalizing of infanticide. My point is that in perhaps only seeing the living mother and her plight, it might be that the worth of the dead baby was subsumed, got lost. Moreover, and I didn't get into this due to being out of town at the time, it is in keeping with the low prison terms that parents who murder disabled infants and children often receive.
As I said in the post, the DA has refiled. If a second judge similarly dismisses, it may be the case wasn't there in the first place. But if the second judge does not dismiss, then we should definitely allow the law to take its course.
I've heard-don't have the report-that in some urban areas there are stiffer penalties for abusing animals than killing your new born child.
I think there is a strong normalization of infanticide among many. I was at a hearing on a "safe havens" bill, a bill to allow desperate mothers to drop off their children shortly after birth at some qualifying facility without penalty. I was stunned by the lack of regard/concern for the kid and the disproportionate empathy for the mothers as if this were something like a child who had been miscarried or died after death by accident or some other cause.
I think there is a strong current of infanticide normalization. They may not be actively thinking it, but it's a part of their mindsets.
Don: That's is an interesting observation. I haven't written about safe havens, although I think they are probably a good idea. If you have some examples of the infant being something of a second thought, I would love to see them.
I, too, would like Don to say more about what he's mentioned, because I've never been quite sure what to think about the safe haven idea. Do you mean, Don, that people didn't seem very concerned about children who had been killed and therefore weren't very supportive for safe haven set-ups as alternatives? Or do you mean that the safe haven set-ups themselves were being promoted by people who seemed totally fixated on the "poor mother" and not at all on the child? If so, did that make a practical difference to the set-up?
Royale, why are you bringing up abortion? Do _you_ think it's perhaps not so very bad to throw your preemie baby who is breathing into a dumpster because he could have been aborted? I mean, what's the connection supposed to be? It sounds like perhaps the idea that people are "conflicted about abortion" is being used to, well, mitigate society's winking at infanticide. Yet, when pro-lifers say that abortion leads to a tolerance for infanticide, they're told the two have _nothing_ to do with each other. And besides, you're saying that probably no one is winking at infanticide here. So why bring up abortion?
Don: I was stunned by the lack of regard/concern for the kid and the disproportionate empathy for the mothers as if this were something like a child who had been miscarried
I bet they were just trying to prod mothers into giving up their children. To do that they have to overcome the mom's natural desire to keep her child. The purpose of these bills is to normalize adoption, and to disonnect raising a child from conceiving and carrying it. They're really because the demand for infant babies to adopt is skyrocketing. Adoptions aren't about finding a home for kids anymore, they're about finding a kid for homes. I doubt these laws really result in fewer babies left in trash cans, but they might succeed in getting some more parents to decide not to raise their own children. Does anyone have any figures?
John: Sometimes your cynicism takes my breath away. As I understand it, they are to prevent a baby from being left, say, on a doorstep where they could die from exposure or neglect if not found. If there is a movement to promote adoption, it would be among pro lifers who urge that as a preferable choice to abortion.
Lydia,
I think the members all supported the program and wanted to see the killing stop. It passed into law, but had no appropriation. I don't get it either. But I do think they wanted to find a way to stop the rash of babies thrown into dumpsters in Las Vegas.
My observation was that members on the panel seemed SO sympathetic (or overly sympathetic) for the mothers who dumped their kids. I kept asking myself, "what about the baby who died?" As I noted above, "I was stunned by the lack of regard/concern for the kid and the disproportionate empathy for the mothers as if this were something like a child who had been miscarried or died after death by accident or some other cause." I don't know. I felt the dead baby and what happened to him or her got lost in all of the concern for the mom who abandoned the child.
I think it was a good idea and our group supported it and would in the future. They had a good program in CA, but someone was trying to kill it. Don't remember what happened.
I like the idea, but it doesn't solve the larger fundamental problem that a large group of people in our nation no longer think human life has inherent value or ultimate value by virtue of being human. Programs like this, though good, well intentioned and probably necessary, are a band aid upon or to restrain the logical outcome of the cancer of personhood theory and its application with infanticide. Infanticide is taught in our best schools from coast to coast and I think that it has to have a consequence that we should be seeing right now-right now because it's been taught for so many years. Americans no doubt love babies and they are revolted by infanticide. The passage of the Born Again Infants Protection Act and the public opposition to Partial Birth Abortion/Infanticide shows that. But among the policy makers in government and medicine etc, I think way too many of them do not share the same value for newborn life as the public. That's going to manifest itself in the way doctors treat newborns, or advise parents and how judges handle cases and how DA's go after infanticide.
John I thoroughly disagree that the Safe Haven's purpose is to prod women into giving up their children where there is no danger to the child being abandoned in anyway. I hate it when you say stuff like this. Now I am going to be up all night trying to figure out where you came up with that!
Lydia,
I brought up abortion because that was in Wesley's original post. Thus, I felt it necessary to respond.
No, I don't think that abortion normalizes infanticide, but they are related. I think that if one is more sympathetic to the plight of a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, that same person would more likely to be more lenient on what punishment should be for women who commit infanticide. Given the surveys I've seen, I have no reason to doubt this belief.
I wouldn't call it *winking* at infanticide. Mercy perhaps. The proper role of the justice system is another.
Lydia,
Let me ask you, how much or what kind of "punishment" should this woman get?
Would it matter if...she were on drugs when it happened? if her husband/boyfriend beat her or abandoned her? she was living on the street? she was unaware of public family services? or, she had another mental disorder, but wasn't technically insane? (say, post-partum, ADD, etc...)
For me, I would look at those factors. I doubt seriously that I'd give her 15-20 year jail time. I don't see the point since she probably isn't much threat to anyone else.
I would probably hand down a 1000 hours community service and counseling, but not jail time. Besides, for us tax-payers, rehabilitation is a lot, lot cheaper than 20 years in jail.
So, am I normalizing infanticide by this leniency?
Royale,
I think you are normalizing infanticide with that kind of sentence. Or at least contributing to it. It at least says it's no big deal to kill a newborn child. What's 1000 hours of community service compared to 15-20? It's just a part time job for a year or so. It communicates loudly that if a baby doesn't meet your expectations, your schedule or could cause you difficulty or embarrassment, you can throw it back and fish for another one. At worst, you just have to show up somewhere for 1,000 hours. That's not enough to make people think twice.
And there's no justice in 1,000 hours for the newborn. That certainly isn't going to protect other new borns either.
I think this has a low view of the new born. But then again, with personhood theory running wild through our streets, it would make sense from that perspective that a human being with no or limited self awareness and no current ability to value his or her future, would probably only be worth 1,000 hours of community service.
I can't remember if you are a personhood theory subscriber, but 1,000 hours would make sense for anyone who was.
Royale, I just tried to post a response to you, but it seems to've disappeared, and I don't have time to recreate it. The short version is, yeah, I think you're normalizing. Would you take that attitude if somebody left a one-year-old in a dumpster? How about if they shook a newborn to death first? (That happened a few years ago, and those kids got nothing but community service.)
The woman could have left the baby somewhere safe, or placed it for adoption. She clearly meant it to die if it was born alive and she threw it in a dumpster.
Sorry if this ends up being partly a duplicate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home