Or maybe the purpose of Christianity wasn’t to work within the system as it now exists?
On the contrary, Paul did participate in a trial under the Romans, and convert Christians remained the legions, as jail wardens, and so on.
I have to say I was utterly stunned to read a prosecutor thinks this is a good use of state resources or that it makes any sense to punish a woman for having attempted suicide and possibly for having provoked the death of her infant.
Really quite stunning.
Even more stunning, that there are defenders for this grotesque mis-allocation of time and resources.
So infanticide isn’t a crime I suppose nor is attempted suicide causing the deaths of others?
This case is a paradigm for awkward facts. If the woman fed rat poision to her newborn child and took it herself in the type of murder/suicide deal that is not uncommon, I doubt anyone would be saying that the involvement of the state would be a waste of time - or say if her husband did the same.
The only reason that it is even a controversy is that it appears to so many to be a cat’s paw for the abortion debate.
[In Canada, there exists a seperate crime of “infanticide” which allocates lesser responsibility to women who murder newborns while their minds are disturbed by post-partum depression … obviously, this would not be an issue in this case.]
That Canadian law is disgusting. Abortions are now de facto available for anyone for a while after birth.
It’s lesser responsibility, not no responsibility. The effect is to limit imprisionment to no more than five years.
In other words, make it into a trivial misdemenor because that’s just the maximum sentence.
It’s classified as an indictable offence (in Canada, the equivalent to the US “misdemenor” category is classified as “summary conviction” offences).
So no, it is not open season on newborns.
That doesn’t mean that the statute is not open to criticism. Just don’t mischaracterize what it states.
First, in order to qualify, there must be evidence that her “mind is disturbed” for the reasons stated:
Then, it is still an indictable offence:
This law is open to the criticism that “not guilty by reason of insanity” is usually a complete defence to a criminal indictment; it creates an awkward halfway-house for a very specific form of temporary insanity.
Sorry, Marley.
Mens rea
Diminished Capacity
(I don’t know if this particular case would fall under such law, but it sounds like a textbook example)
One day, grasshopper, you will learn that nothing in this world is as black or white as you seem to think it.
Well that’s why Canada’s such a hellhole, and why so many Canadian women have a total blast getting third-trimester abortions.
I’m a bit nauseous over some of these comments. It’s one thing to ask women to take prenatal vitamins, to stop drinking, to change their lifestyles for the health of their fetus and future child. But they’re supposed to overcome suicidal depression for the sake of the children? And this shouldn’t be considered because women might then say ‘If I can’t get an abortion, I’ll kill myself’ and no one will know if they mean it? Disgusting.
Nothing like accusations of having a position that is “stunning”, a grotesque waste of time, and disgusting to aid in a great debate. Now I recall why I swore not to become involved in any abortion thread here. Which is weird because this case isn’t about abortion.
It’s not? Because that seems to be the bulk of the link in the OP.
Perhaps if she could have obtained a legal abortion (though I still can’t find information on how far along she was in her pregnancy) she would have opted for that over attempted suicide. Maybe the shame of being abandoned was enough to drive her to it, anyway, without the possibility of being a single mother. A pity no one clued her into the traditional American method of falling down the stairs.
Yes, the tendency of certain social liberals to claim that Christianity teaches us never to judge is…annoying. I suppose a case could be made that Jesus really meant that and that it is proof he was mad, but that’s…worrying.
Once again, philosophical thought trumps easy simplicity.
Piffle. It’s outrageous, we are outraged. I suppose you want a serious-minded great debate on whether gingers have souls next.
Five years is not a misdemeanor sentence, unless you’re in Elfland or something.
For those who need further explication on why using the law in this fashion to punish actions taken by a pregnant woman, the ACLU’s Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (pdf link) the charges against Ms. Shuai are illustrative. The three main issues:
-
The language of laws regarding injury to pregnant woman that causes the death of the fetus she’s carrying makes it clear that they were designed to punish third parties who assault pregnant women (with or without intent to harm the fetus) not the women themselves.
-
Using criminal law to punish a pregnant woman for things that she did/did not do (but should have) during her pregnancy based on pregnancy outcomes is both discriminatory and sets a horrible precedent of both unconstitutionally invasive monitoring of pregnant women (especially those in less than ideal home situations or those with any history of potentially complicating illness), It also sets the stage for an abrogation of doctor/patient confidentiality for pregnant women and de facto criminalization of medical issues that often cannot be traced to any particular precipitating event/circumstance
-
In this particular case, Ms. Shuai’s actions upon admission to the hospital would indicate that she was absolutely in a mentally resolute state upon admission, but had protective, not destructive intent toward the child, as shown in her agreement (after several days of treatment) to a c-section delivery and in her demeanor toward the child once born.
It’s a lengthy read, but worthwhile to get a handle on the issues of using existing law in this fashion.
If there were a few things you could prove it would be ok by me to charge her for murder:
- There was no (or minimal) risk to herself in taking the rat poison
- She knew that the rat poison was going kill her baby while being safe for herself
- She wanted to get rid of the baby
- The rat poison can be proven to have killed the baby.
- She was “sane” when she took the poison
At 33 weeks the baby is viable (and presumably this was a healthy, normal baby) so any act the deliberatly causes its death should come in for “punishment”
Well, we’ll just have to disagree on this point.
I’m not conceding that’s she’s guilty of anything.
It would seem to me that taking the position that a woman who tried to commit suicide must be prosecuted for murder (I do believe a capital crime in the US) would normally require a strong constitution so as not to be put off when people reasonably observe that prosecution of post-suicide attempts is a grotesque waste of state resources.
Disagree. If the legislature meant to include that exception, they could have easily made the language explicit.
Not discriminatory in a way that violates Due Process or Equal Protection. Obviously it’s “discriminatory” in a sense. But every law is “discriminatory” in that it discriminates between two classes of persons in some way.
Then we can address the invasive monitoring if and when it happens.
Then we can address the abrogation of the privilege if and when it happens.
That’s a good argument to make.
Do you concede that she took poison intending to end her life, and that she did so within the third trimester of her pregnancy?