Full-Birth Abortion

The second-degree murder conviction of a Canadian woman who strangled her newborn was overturned (an appeals court ruled there was a reasonable doubt, though she had twice received this conviction from juries) and replaced with the conviction of infanticide, which has a much lower maximum sentence of five years.

But the sentence was suspended, and the judge cited Canada's lack of anti-abortion laws as part of her decision: "[W]hile 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."

Wait a minute…abortion? So now this falls under the same reasoning as abortion?

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents' home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour's yard.

So now sympathy for the mother is enough to justify killing a born human being, and so her actions fall under the same guidelines as those in Canada that cover women who want to kill their unborn children.

It makes perfect, consistent sense, of course—the child is the same human being before birth that he is after, so if the reasons are sufficient in the first case, they ought to be sufficient in the second. I guess I just hoped the adoption of a consistent view would work backward to protect the unborn rather than forward to endanger the "justborn" (a term I just heard for the first time in connection with this case).

But because of consistent thinking, the judge said that Canadians have found the no-minimum-sentence infanticide law to be a "fair compromise of all the interests involved" when it comes to killing justborns, and then she suspended even that.

But Effert is not completely off the hook yet:

Next week, the court will hear arguments on a remaining issue from Effert's long legal battle: the 16 days of jail time she still must serve for throwing her baby's body over the fence.

Her lawyer, Peter Royal, asked the court to do away with the penalty or allow her to serve the time on weekends. It was "unjust" and "almost mean to incarcerate her" at this point, he argued.

Actually, I agree with her lawyer. If murdering a child isn't worth jail time, it certainly is just meanness to put Effert in jail for throwing a dead body over a fence.

[HT: Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform]

Comments

[Daughter of Eve]

Abortion always ends a life. This act was nothing short of premeditated murder.

[Carl]

This is scary. This doesn't seem real. By this logic a person could murder their 2 year old and call it delayed abortion.

This is so bizarre.

[Trent]

As a Canadian, I have to say this is not a representative attitude in Canada.

I don't want to sound flippant, because I really am appalled with the situation, but here in Canada throwing a used condom or a beer bottle on your neighour's lawn is considered beyond rude and liable to have the police called. I can only imagine the response to a dead baby strangled with a thong.

For years, here in Canada, people have been appalled at the sentences laid down by judges (who in Canada are political appointees) and it would not be the first time that the convicted would serve weekends to not affect their jobs or 2 years less a day to keep them in a provincial jail and not a federal prison.

I took the time to look up the official definitions in the Canadian Criminal code.

Infanticide
233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216.

Punishment for infanticide
237. Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 220

When child becomes human being
223.(1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

Killing child (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Punishment ( from 2008 version Pocket Criminal Code)Everyone who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life
Unless
Saving – This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother or child, causes the death of the child.

The key point here seems to be -she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

If I read this correctly, if that wasn't proven, it would have been straight homocide.

[Trent]

From Wikipedia-

Postpartum psychosis is a separate mental illness, which involves a complete break with reality. Although sometimes confused with or erroneously referred to as postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis is a very different disorder. It is less common than PPD, and it involves the onset of psychotic symptoms that may include thought disturbances, delusions, hallucinations and/or disorganized speech or behavior.

Treatment for Postnatal Psychosis is essential; it will not go away without medical attention

---------------------------------

This would be an odd defence in Canada, uness the law has changed, from when I took Law in High School. We were taught that such defences were less likely than in the US because of how it was dealt with by the medical community. It was said that in the US, it had to be proved that you were unfit to be released in order to be held, while in Canada you had to prove that you were sane in order to be released. As a result, sentences based on medical problems tended to to keep you locked up longer than simply pleading guilty.

[Amy]

Trent, the woman was tried twice (the first verdict was thrown out because of "legal issues"--not sure what they were), and the jury found that it was murder because they didn't think her actions matched the definition of infanticide (i.e., they didn't think she hadn't mentally recovered from birth, etc.).

But the appeals court thought this was unreasonable and there was doubt as to whether this was murder rather than infanticide, so they reduced it to infanticide.

In other words, the jury didn't think her unstable condition was proven, so they thought it was murder. (Considering that two juries found this, I have no doubt that you're not alone in being opposed to the court in this situation.)

But really, since I read that people in Canada rarely serve a sentence for infanticide (as there's no minimum sentence required and it usually ends up being time served), as disturbing as that is, it's not the most disturbing thing. The main point of all this is the reasoning of the judge, who connected the reasoning behind allowing abortion with the reasoning behind not punishing infanticide--not mental incompetence, but sympathy.

Some of the links I pointed to tell more about the judge's thoughts about Effert's mental health. But it doesn't sound like she thought the girl was crazy, it seems to be more that she had sympathy for her extreme anxiety caused by her situation and wanted to be understanding.

That's what her lawyer called for, as well:

"What this woman needs is support and understanding," he said. "She doesn't need to be trucked off to the penitentiary.... This is a very fine young woman who went through a tragic event. She seeks understanding from the court, which I suspect will be forthcoming."

[Trent]

True there is not a minimum sentance, but the wording of the definition of infanticide would seem to require her to be mentaly disturbed at the time.

I am assuming that she would have to be found mentally disturbed enough to qualify for the definition of infanticide (othewise it would be homocide) but not disturbed enough to be a danger to the public (i.e. no psychiatric incarceration). That would have to be the narrow target, since less mental distress would send her prison, and more to a psych ward.

I'm not sure how a different interpretation would hold up on appeal, as the statutes say that if the child is born alive, it is a human being and therefore the same penalty as any other human being except for that one exception. Regardless of the judge's views on abortion, the ruling seems not to fit the legal definitions from what is reported.

It is a common theme in Canadian juris prudence during the last few years. There is not the will to punish anyone if there is an argument for counselling instead. I've seen reports of people shooting family members and serving weekends so it doesn't interfere with their day job. I'm glad that the crime rate up here is rather low, as a lot of our judges seem t be frustrated social workers.

[Trent]

As a whole, the federal government is absolutely scared to take on the issue of abortion at any level. A lot of the ruling party are right wing (for Canada anyway) and the Prime Minister is an evangelical Christian control freak. If they can't tighten up the rules, I'm not holding my breath for any other party to do anything.

[Millie]

This is the sadest thing I've ever read. The same people who fight in favor of abortion seem to be the same ones who fight for animal rights and are also against executions of prisoners. What is with that? Sadly society doesn't value innocent little children very much do they?

[Trent]

The shifting demographics will come back to haunt them. As they grow older, there will be fewer people to take care of them, provide services, or pay into social programs?

Why? Because the people who would have taken care of them were never born because they were inconvenient.

I firmly believe that God pays us back for every bad thing we do, in this world or the next. Although I am amazed at how the ruling could stand from my reading of the criminal code ( probably naively as I'm not a lawyer) , I hold that at some point justice will be done.

My experience of trying to do things my way constantly convinces me that sooner or later God gets what he wants.

I just want to say that Canadians are not so liberal that we don't find this appalling.

[Jeff]

Daron,

I finally got around to listening to your RC Jr. sermon. I commented on the "Do our prayers make a difference" post where you posted the link.

Does this sermon really represent your perspective?

[Louis Kuhelj]

Millie

"What is with that? Sadly society doesn't value innocent little children very much do they?"

I think it is absolutely heartbreaking. I am so appalled by this that I want a new classification other than "human being" under which I wish to be listed. I am ashamed to be so classified.

[Daron]

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for finally listening and for alerting me here.
Yes, thanks, I do agree with Sproul Jr. on this one.

[Austin]

Trent,

Thanks for taking the time to reference the legal code as well as giving your opinion on it and how it pertains to the case. I think the judiciary system in the US and Canada has a lot of peoblems due to judges like this who make decisions based on their feelings and not the law as it stands. Even worse, this creates a preceident that allows other judges to pass similar verdicts.

It's just frustrating. Thanks for putting it in perspective though- God is perfectly just and will enact due punishment on anyone that deserves it. Luckily, we have Christ to stand on our behalf because I'm not sure I would fair much better than the woman in this post otherwise.

[Mo]

I don't know who disgusts me more, the savage mother (and I use that term only technically) who did this to her child, or those now excusing her and saying she needs "support and understanding."

Now we have to be supportive and understanding of those who murder their infants even after they are born?

Does someone want to explain to me why I have to support and understand this evil?

This story has me sick.

[Bennett]

You don't support or understand the evil. To do either would be immoral. What we strive to do, as Christians, is to support and understand the human being behind it. Should she go unpunished? On the surface of it, absolutely not. But do we know whether she was insane? Do we know whether Satan took advantage of her? Do we know how much pressure she was under? In short, do we know much of anything past the bare details? Of course not. So who are we to sit here and pass judgement on her soul?

Now, that being said, my first response when reading this, and the judge's namby-pamby reaction, was "Oh, Lord, we're ALL going to go to Hell for this." Trying to understand the person isn't the same as excusing them, that's feel-good nonsense. We try to understand so that we can prevent it before the fact, rather than condemn it after. Because by the time it's done, the ultimate justice is in God's hands.

[volker]

....instead of "assassinating" this poor child (I'm talking about the mother...) we should maybe focus on the real key point.
This child lived with her parents. They did not even figure out that she was pregnant and she was scared enough, that she would rather get rid of the child than facing her parents with it.
As a Christian I know that she will a)pay the consequences and that b)it's my job to show mercy and forgiveness and not judgment.
....but the key is: If we can argue, killing a justborn should be looked at in the same or similar way than killing the unborn, than it leads us to the logic, that killing the unborn is the same or similar than killing the unborn. It's always ends in the same corner:
What is it?
This judge makes a strong case for the fact, that unborn and justborn are same or at least similar. If you go with the judges argument, she should be charged for practicing without a license ....

[volker]

...correction:
..logic, that killing the unborn is the same or similar than killing the >just born< (not unborn, sorry)

[JustChatting]

A few thoughts: The woman was found guilty of infanticide and the issue relates to sentencing. Given that no minimum applies (and in Canada very few minimum sentences exist in the Criminal Code) , the Judge can effectively render whatever that Judge deems appropriate. Risking understatement, in this case the sentence leaves most reasonable people queazy. Also, as this is an Appeals level court, there is no "defence" element to the review (as it relates only an error in law) and nor are Appeal court decisions readily appealed.

What this clearly shows is the degree to which legal positivism has taken hold in Canada. Don't look for Justice when all we do in the courts is merely law. Don't pretend there is a Higher Law when it's all just mere "judicial notice and determinations" by which our now, not so common-law, is constructed and applied.

The sad truth is that, as a Canadian society, we have fallen... and the Hand that reaches down to us and offers assistance is not one our secular society is willing to reach up towards. The real question is how long can this particular social trajectory continue and what will it mean for our kids?

[Trent]

I don't this this judge was doing "merely law". In many cases it seems as the role of the judge is to find reasons not to punish anyone.

If there is a wider acceptance of the materialist/atheist morality in the judicial system, we are in trouble. Murder is not wrong. It is just a violation of contract law but not as important, as it is merely ignoring a social contract which means you didn't actually sign anything.

[JustChatting]

Trent - You've got it right in my opinion... Judges are, in the ironic sense, merely doing law and a secular/positivist legal morality may best describe our judicial mindset. Even as naturalism provides an avenue by which to diminish our sense of individual accountability, a rights entitled conceptualization (one that seems devoid of the more traditional commensurate duties formulation) among citizenry compels a worldview dominated by the scourge of our society - "entitlements". Now, granted, these entitlements are for you and me... but for many it would be mostly about the "me" side of the equation
.
So, if I'm not really responsible for what I do and its all about my "rights", and you owe "me", we can see why Judges, who seem to accept this conceptualization of the social contract, find themselves disinclined to "punish". Bang on Trent... We are in trouble... but to many of us like it just the way it is.