Canada: Woman kills sons, seeks 'infanticide' verdict instead of 'murder'

Submitted by Scottie on Thu, 2008-09-11 12:41

Story here. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Look at the comments below it. It's encouraging to see some appalled by the double standard. Excerpt:

'A Guelph, Ont., woman who told a psychiatrist she had suffocated her two infant sons is expected hear a verdict Thursday in her trial on murder charges.

The 27-year-old woman, who cannot be identified because she was 17 at the time of her first son's death, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder.
...
The defence has argued that the woman should be convicted of infanticide, rather than murder. Infanticide is defined in the Criminal Code as a woman's killing of her newborn child while her mind is "disturbed" by the effects of childbirth.
...
If convicted of infanticide, the woman could receive a maximum sentence of five years in prison. A first-degree murder conviction carries a mandatory life sentence.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"...female person...". Again, another break for being female. It amounts to this: if you act early enough, in Canada, you can kill your newborn, but only as long as you are female.

In old Rome, technically, the patriarch of the family (usually the oldest male in the extended family, but not always) had life and death power over all members of his family. That was wrong. He shouldn't have. So why is it OK for a woman to have this power over her children provided she acts soon enough? No controversy here re abortion-- the baby is in this case already born, definitely a legal person.

No excuses. None.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2008-09-11 14:36

The 27-year-old woman, who cannot be identified because she was 17 at the time of her first son's death, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder.

Give me a break! This murderer is almost 30 years old, and they're with holding her name? What a bunch of bullshit! Even if you buy the argument that it's ok to with hold her name because she was 17 at the time of the first murder; what about the second murder? She was legally an adult then.

This bitch should be named and shamed.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by insdel2005 on Thu, 2008-09-11 16:45