Mother Who Murders Newborn Can’t Be Prosecuted
It was just a matter of time until we saw a story like this:
A woman in Campbell County, Virginia smothered her newborn infant, and police are powerless to do anything about it . . .
From WSLS in Roanoake, Virginia:
The caller said a woman in her early 20s was in labor. When deputies arrived, they discovered the baby had actually been born around 1:00a.m., about ten hours earlier. Investigators say the baby was already dead when deputies got there.
Investigators tell WSLS the baby’s airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother. Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life. Therefore, the mother cannot be charged.
“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it.“, says Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.“
This is the end result of the attitude that allows abortions right up until the moment of birth: now you can “abort” a “fetus” that has been born, simply by failing to cut the umbilical cord. Assuming local officials are correctly interpreting the law (which criminalizes killing the fetus “of another”), the state of Virginia allows infanticide. Until they change the law.
Someone should ask Barack Obama about this. Didn’t he vote against laws protecting children born alive, on the grounds that nobody would allow the killing of a child already born?
I know that was Illinois and this is Virginia, but this case illustrates that the law isn’t always as clear as you might think.
Just horrible.
UPDATE: In comments, carlitos quotes at length a statute that (based on a quick scan, which is all I have time for) may apply here. I have no idea what the punishment is.
UPDATE x2: A second quick scan suggests it probably doesn’t apply, since the baby was fully extracted from the mother.
How could we think about interfering with her right to choose?
Old Coot (d2bd0f) — 12/19/2009 @ 7:04 am“Through your own fault you will lose the inheritance I gave you.” Jeremiah 17:4
I know this is anecdotal. It’s just one incident among 300 million people. But what kind of nation can tolerate this? And if we allow this kind of thing to continue, then what future do we deserve?
The offense of this is that it’s visible. It’s out in front of us. But the same gruesome act has been permitted here more than 40 million times.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 12/19/2009 @ 7:09 amI don’t think so. This would appear to be covered under Virginia’s ‘partial birth infanticide’ law.
carlitos (57cfe1) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:25 amAnonymous h/t here. Don’t bother clicking if you don’t want to read whiny blog-drama.
carlitos (57cfe1) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:28 amI can’t help but cling to the notion that if the people who have turned our country into a bloodbath really understood what they were doing, they would stop.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:34 am“Just horrible.”
I would put it differently:
Sanmon (319c0c) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:38 amEVIL
In the purist form. To put it any differently sounds to me, like support of her actions.
carlitos,
That’s why I predicate the post on the assumption that local officials are correctly applying the law.
I’ll link your comment though.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:49 amRemember what Obama said during his campaign regarding abortion, and about his own children if they had life, other than theirs living within them. For that matter now if his children make a short drive to Virginia our President has no issue with this women’s action or his children’s own action in Virginia:
“But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Baracks Mom may have made a mistake, under his definition.
Sanmon (319c0c) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:52 amI would have actually expected such a rule to be far older. Possibly dating to colonial times.
I also find the airway blockage/suffocation bit unclear. If the mother had done nothing to clear an airway blocked by the pregnancy/birth process I would be hard pressed to say she had done anything wrong that should rise to the level of criminality. Deliberate suffocation with a blanket would be another matter.
Soronel Haetir (2b4c2b) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:55 amBrilliant link carlitos! A hearty well-done Sir.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/19/2009 @ 8:56 amcarlitos,
Subsection (B) of the statute requires a deliberate act against an infant “who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother.” Thus, if the act occurs after complete extraction or compulsion, it may fall outside the statute.
To quote the original post, “Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life.” Subsection (C) of the statute defines a “human infant who has been born alive,” but “for the purposes of this section,” which means it may not apply for prosecution under some other (homicide) statute.
Ed Morrissey made the point in response to CJ that a number of people with direct experience in the law, and law degrees, are saying one thing, while CJ seems to be saying another. I’m not big on arguments from authority, but CJ would need to do a bit more to convnce me he got it right and the law/law enforcement types all got it wrong, esp. since they clearly have no incentive to get it wrong in this case.
Karl (cc4af5) — 12/19/2009 @ 9:02 amAny doctor or nurse (and many layman really) can tell you that it’s pretty clear if a baby had been breathing after being born. There are clear, immediate changes in circulation and structure that occur. The ME will know without a doubt.
As far as it being accidental or not, the story appears to contradict itself. If the baby’s airway was still blocked, then it couldn’t have been breathing and so could not have been smothered by the mother in bedding. I don’t think they can both be true statements.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/19/2009 @ 9:04 amBTW, if the legalese made my comment #11 hard to follow, consider that the statute bans partial-birth infanticide. It does not ban post-birth infanticide. That would likely fall under some other homicide statute, but “Investigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life.”
Karl (cc4af5) — 12/19/2009 @ 9:10 amFair points, but those two laws sure do seem to conflict in this case.
carlitos (57cfe1) — 12/19/2009 @ 9:39 amWhat makes this both more laughable (or tragic) and sickening is all the people who actually shed more tears for and are more soft-hearted about animals—eg, a good percentage of Californians and growing numbers of modern-day sophisticates. Such people who, worse of all, are deluded enough (or even more deluded) to believe their sentiments somehow spring forth from a humane and compassionate philosophy.
Mark (411533) — 12/19/2009 @ 9:47 amcarlitos,
Story of my life! 😉
Karl (cc4af5) — 12/19/2009 @ 9:53 amYes, leave her alone. Life is short and Judgment is forever.
nk who is sleeping alone tonight (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:03 amI have to remember to delete that stupid cookie.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:04 amThanks for the clear explanation Karl. Some of that biz law course from way back is coming back to me.
Since she’s over 18, they could try abuse / neglect I think, but sounds like this poor kid wasn’t a ‘person’ yet.
carlitos (57cfe1) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:38 amThis case would not pass felony review in Cook County, guys. Nobody’s going to try a mother for what she did or did not do seconds after she delivered.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:42 amKarl – if the fact that the baby is still connected via the umbilical cord means it’s not a seperate life, doesn’t that same connection mean that it hasn’t been completely extracted?
I know, I know, it’s a stretch.
A better argument would be that explicitly excluding “completing delivery of a living human infant and severing the umbilical cord of any infant who has been completely delivered” implicitly does not exclude “completing delivery of a living human infant and not severing the umbilical cord”.
It seems to me as a practical political matter that this might be a case where the prosecutor wants to bring the case even if it’s a stretch, (a) to push the law, and (b) to force the woman to go through a high profile trial in the court of public opinion.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:43 amWhat are you saying nk, that Moms and Dads should be able to kill the kids if they do so within seconds after birth?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:46 amNo. Just actus reus amd mens rea (if I remember my Latin). The baby dying is a bad thing. Punishing the mother for it is a different thing.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:56 amShe did not go to an abortionist.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:57 amMy beautiful little girl, who is now seven, and my wife too, had a danger of not surviving birth, if a doctor had not done a C-section.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:10 am” Nobody’s going to try a mother for what she did or did not do seconds after she delivered.
Comment by nk ”
You could be right on the law and the willingness for folks to touch this issue, but I would happily see her sentenced to prison for murder. That’s what this was. This baby was human being, no matter how the law was formulated.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:11 amThe baby was a human being. And the mother is a human being too. Leave her alone. She did not have an abortion, even though they’re as easy as buying a pack of gum. Give her the benefit of the doubt and of mercy.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:15 amnk, if the baby is healthy, and the mother is healthy, and the birth was healthy and risk-free, are you saying that Mom and Dad should be free to kill the baby as long as they do it within a few seconds of birth?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:22 amNo, Andrew, just that there are some things outside human jurisdiction.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:24 amPatterico:
When I’m told that
“[i]nvestigators say because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life”, as opposed to something like, say,
“Campbell County Deputy District Attorney John Doe says that he is unwilling to attempt to prosecute, because, under the Commonwealth v. Smith interpretation of Virginia Criminal Code Section XXX pertaining to homicide, because the mother and the baby were. . . “,
I smell a bit of political tabloidism.
When you, at #7, dodge this bullet with “[a]ssuming local officials are correctly interpreting the law (which criminalizes killing the fetus “of another”), the state of Virginia allows infanticide”, when I know you’re smart enough, and have enough resources available, so that you don’t NEED to make this assumption, I begin to smell something I remember from behind the Dairy Science Department at Ohio State.
. . . and the link to Hot Air’s story REALLY tips it:
Says Hot Air: “After all, if the law covered the situation, the legislator wouldn’t have needed to introduce legislation to fix it and the AG, the county’s attorney, and the sheriff wouldn’t have endorsed it.”
Because no public official would ever propose or endorse useless legislation, purely for political gain?
I may not agree with you about much, but I KNOW you know better than that.
RGS (7eb844) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:25 amnk, if the baby is healthy, and the mother is healthy, and the birth was healthy and risk-free, then at what point after birth (six months, a year, a decade) do you think that Mom and Dad should be penalized for killing the child?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:28 amBut I have never given birth, although I did pack my wife’s C-section cut three times a day for thirty days, so I don’t know what mothers would say about this.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:30 amnk, what exactly is “the benefit of the doubt” you want us to give her?
If this young woman were aware of the legal loophole and knew she could murder without impunity, it would seem and feel much more premeditated than it already was, and be that much more revolting.
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:31 amJust so this question doesn’t get lost: nk, if the baby is healthy, and the mother is healthy, and the birth was healthy and risk-free, then at what point after birth (six months, a year, a decade) do you think that Mom and Dad should start being subject to penalties for killing the child?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:34 amAndrew, I don’t know that there was a daddy here. There was a mother who just gave birth.
And what her state of mind was … I would not want to make criminal.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:35 amnk, I’m giving you a simple hypothetical question. if the baby is healthy, and the mother is healthy (physically healthy and not insane), and the birth was healthy and risk-free, then at what point after birth (six months, a year, a decade) do you think that Mom should start being subject to penalties for killing the child? Is your answer the same for Dad?
These are very simple questions, I think.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:38 amSo the answer does not get lost:
There was a woman who was pregnant. And she knew she was pregnant. And she did not go to a clinic for an abortion. And she gave birth. And the baby died. Some few seconds after it was born. I’m sorry for the baby and leave the mother alone.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:40 amNo, Andrew, I do not want an inquiry whether the baby was healthy, or the mother sane, or if daddy was there. There has has to be a baseline.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:45 amnk, I disagree with yout apparent position that mothers should be free to suffocate their born children. I’m still unclear about whether you think fathers should be equally free.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:45 amNo, Andrew, neither fathers nor mothers should be free to suffocate their new-born children.
But this mother should not be prosecuted for it.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:48 amThen I’ll rephrase, nk, I disagree with your apparent position that mothers should be LEGALLY free to suffocate their born children. I’m still unclear about whether you think fathers should be equally free.
I’m 47 years old, and I would like to think that my Mom would go to jail if she tries to suffocate me (and vice versa).
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:50 amComment by nk — 12/19/2009 @ 11:48 am
Of course she shouldn’t. Public shame and activism to change the law in particular works so much better.
Brad S (d566f4) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:51 amI think that there is an affirmative obligation to care for a baby who cannot care for itself. I do not want to send the mother who just gave birth to that baby to jail for not carrying that obligation out.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:03 pmLook, this is society making the rules and building the jails. And where the fuck was society when that mother was screaming in pain as her pelvis was coming apart. Ok?
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:05 pmSuffocation is very different from abandonment, nk.
Do you think that other parents will be likely to kill their children if they see there is no penalty?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:09 pm“The Law’s an Ass!”
AD - RtR/OS! (88245d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:10 pm“But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Baracks Mom may have made a mistake, under his definition.
Comment by Sanmon — 12/19/2009 @ 8:52 am
— Only, in this case, 300 million of us were punished.
Icy Texan (c20a4d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:18 pm“And what her state of mind was … I would not want to make criminal.”
Determinations of competence and legal insanity are made every day. Do you contest them too?
If not, why would you exempt the present situation from necessary and proper scrutiny of potential criminal intent?
Federal Dog (2282a0) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:19 pmDo you think that other parents will be likely to kill their children if they see there is no penalty?
Comment by Andrew — 12/19/2009 @ 12:09 pm
No, I don’t.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:20 pmAgain, nk, what exactly is “the benefit of the doubt” you want us to give her?
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:23 pmHmm, let’s see. Mom has just given birth to junior, who cries a lot. Dad doesn’t like it, and wants to suffocate junior. But Dad knows that he will go to jail for the rest of his life if he suffocates junior. Does Dad (a) choose to go to jail for the rest of his life, or (b) let junior live? If it were me, I would definitely choose (b).
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:24 pmIf not, why would you exempt the present situation from necessary and proper scrutiny of potential criminal intent?
Comment by Federal Dog — 12/19/2009 @ 12:19 pm
I would hope that a mother who just gave birth … her pelvis torn in two … her vagina forced open to five inches or more in diameter … most of her guts coming out … would be he held to a different standard than M’Naghten by a prosecutor or a judge.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:27 pm“The late, late, LATE-term abortion law”
“The if-your-birth-canal-is-stretched-and-the-kid-just-happens-to-slip-out,-you-should-still-be-able-to-kill-it law”
Icy Texan (c20a4d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:28 pmAnd this different standard — the one that says a mother will face no penalty for killing her child — how long does this different standard last after birth?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:30 pmAndrew, you’re just being dishonest in your argument. This is not daddy killing a baby who’s cryin’ too much.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:31 pmComment by Andrew — 12/19/2009 @ 12:24 pm
If you were Jr., (a) would be very attractive. And, it would raise the community IQ!
AD - RtR/OS! (88245d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:32 pmComment by Andrew — 12/19/2009 @ 12:30 pm
They have to be very careful here; for, if Post-Partum Abortion is legalized, a lot of politicians are at risk.
AD - RtR/OS! (88245d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:34 pmre: #51
Icy Texan (c20a4d) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:34 pmWhat do you call that? PPD-icide? Is that like ‘battered wife syndrome’?
And this different standard — the one that says a mother will face no penalty for killing her child — how long does this different standard last after birth?
Comment by Andrew — 12/19/2009 @ 12:30 pm
I dunno, Andrew. Maybe for as long as it’s better to use limited law enforcement resources to send a drive-by shooter to prison or the death chamber?
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:36 pmIt was just a matter of time until we saw a story like this:
No, it’s been happening for a very long time. Virginia is not the only state with a common law definition of live birth. Click on the cases and you will find additional cases:
Link
Link 2
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Dave (3dac88) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:37 pmnk, I gather from your comment #54 that you don’t think Dads should have any legal right to kill the kids, and that only Moms should have such a right. This might well raise an Equal Protection Clause problem, however, in that Moms would have a license to kill, but not Dads.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:39 pmI don’t understand #58.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:41 pmOk, Andrew, I give up.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:44 pm“I would hope that a mother who just gave birth … her pelvis torn in two … her vagina forced open to five inches or more in diameter … most of her guts coming out …”
Whoa: Where are these facts coming from?
Federal Dog (2282a0) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:46 pmWise choice.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:47 pm“I would hope that a mother who just gave birth … her pelvis torn in two … her vagina forced open to five inches or more in diameter … most of her guts coming out …”
Whoa: Where are these facts coming from?
Comment by Federal Dog — 12/19/2009 @ 12:46 pm
Some medical book I read one time.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:49 pmMy daughter’s head was closer to six inches and that’s why we had to cut my wife’s belly open to pull the little shit out. And she was still coneheaded for being wedged in there trying to come out.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 12:53 pm“Some medical book I read one time”
I see. Many of us with firsthand knowledge of childbirth are simply suggesting that the event is not insanity-inducing and almost never results in the mother killing her newborn.
It is fair to investigate why that happened in this case. The newborn deserves more respect than you seem to be according her.
Federal Dog (2282a0) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:00 pmI thought I was saying that a dead baby and her mother in prison are two different things.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:06 pmSorry, Andrew. I meant #52, wherein nk wrote: I would hope that a mother who just gave birth … her pelvis torn in two … her vagina forced open to five inches or more in diameter … most of her guts coming out … would be he held to a different standard than M’Naghten by a prosecutor or a judge.
I was asking him if he thinks that: A) a Post-Partum Depression defense (instantaneous PPD, in this case) is really reasonable; and, B) is the torture that he ascribes to the process of childbirth akin to that suffered by a battered wife — one that subsequently ends the life of the being that caused her pain.
Icy Texan (c20a4d) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:12 pmThe comments got re-numbered (probably because a comment was removed), which makes a lot of the above discussion difficult to follow. That’s probably just as well, since much of the discussion above is not worth following.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:15 pmThe comment at 12:37 was fished from the spam filter which throws off the numbers. None were deleted. Referring to comment numbers will cause confusion if an earlier comment is fished from spam, released from moderation, or deleted. I usually quote the comment I’m referring to so as to avoid confusion. Thanks for pointing it out Andrew, it’s been a while since I mentioned this and recent visitors probably weren’t aware.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:33 pmAgreed. I’m guessing that what nk is saying is “don’t punish the mother, she feels bad enough about what she did”. He sure seems to be allowing her some kind of backdoor justification for her behavior, though.
Icy Texan (c20a4d) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:34 pm“I would hope that a mother who just gave birth … her pelvis torn in two … her vagina forced open to five inches or more in diameter … most of her guts coming out … would be he held to a different standard than M’Naghten by a prosecutor or a judge.
Comment by nk ”
This is a good point. It’s quite a tragedy. There are different kinds of homicide, and that’s why we have different sentences and justification defenses.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:39 pmI’m guessing that what nk is saying is “don’t punish the mother, she feels bad enough about what she did”.
Maybe she felt badly, or maybe she didn’t:
The baby’s grandmother was home and was the one who called 911. Police say she will not be charged because the baby was born in the middle of the night and the grandmother did not know until late morning. Investigators tell us the baby’s father was upset when he showed up at the home after deputies.
“He was very upset. I think the grandparents were upset. I believe everyone was upset, except for the person who should have been upset, the mother.“, says Emerson.
(emph. added)
I am hard pressed to have sympathy or treat with kid gloves and assume that this young woman felt badly about what she did. This is something way beyond the pale and any attempts to giver her the benefit of the doubt is to further devalue the life that was willfully killed by the one single person charged with housing, nurturing, and carrying this baby safely into the world.
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/19/2009 @ 1:55 pmI get nk’s point and am giving it some thought.
carlitos (a098e3) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:20 pmFYI, Virginia has a “safe haven” law allowing abandonment o children up to 14 days after birth. See here.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:21 pmI’m on Team nk on this one I think.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:22 pmI ran across that safe haven law while studying the statutes. I’m not willing to guess why this kid didn’t end up there, or living its y life. I imagine that it’s complicated.
carlitos (a098e3) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:24 pmWell, if we’re going to let women kill their babies without any penalty, maybe we can include a subsidy to make it easier. Instead of 911, maybe they could call 811, so that an ambulance will arrive with technicians specially trained to kill babies. I would imagine that suffocating a baby might cause trauma for a mother, and we wouldn’t want that would we? And while we’re at it, maybe we can also legalize killing all those horrible Christians, who always seem to be getting in the way of legalized death. And certainly, if we make it legal for Mom to kill junior, we should also make it legal for Dad to kill junior, or for Dad to avenge the killing of junior by killing Mom, and vice versa of course.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:30 pmMaybe in high school, between the mandatory condom lessons and lectures on “outercourse” they could mention that 30- and 40- somethings in big cities will give you big bucks for a newborn. Just a thought. Where legal, etc.
carlitos (a098e3) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:31 pmSo those on “Team nk” feel that a pass should be given to a woman who gives birth to a live, healthy baby and then willfully chooses to murder it because she has suffered greatly during delivery?
Is that what you are saying?
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:43 pmNo, I think they’re saying that the pass should be given regardless of whether there was any suffering during delivery.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 2:56 pm“I’m from the government and I love your baby more than you do”, should always be given some thought. Thanks, Carlitos and happyfeet.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:05 pmNo, Andrew was arguing with the voices in his head and some of us were just passing through.
carlitos (a098e3) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:06 pmIt’s a different Andrew carlitos.
“Hello… I am your new mother. I just gave birth. Prepare to die.” Just doesn’t have the same ring.
Sorry, can’t defend murder. Not interested in debate or further discussion, it’s sickening.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:13 pmI don’t know Dana. If this becomes some sort of trend then I might could reassess, but I’m about 98% certain there’ll be change of Virginia law in nothing flat no matter what people think.
Like how it became essential to outlaw monkeys immediately after that psychotic one ate that lady’s face.
But my feel is this sort of thing is just what’s going to happen in some infinitesimally small percentage of pregnancies law or no law pass or no pass.
We hear about this stuff more cause of the Internet and cable news and it creates an illusion that our laws are deficient I think.
But you can’t outlaw freaky sh*t and expect freaky sh*t to obey.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:15 pmBut Bill Cosby’s “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it” provoked laughter and dollars, Stashiu. I am not saying what a mother should do. How on Earth could I? Only what society should think twice about what to do.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:25 pmnk – If the question of the sanity of a mother who kills a viable out-of-the-womb infant (NOT fetus) is not worthy of presenting to triers of fact, what on Earth is?
If you wish to, in all such cases, deny this examination in open court, it is on you to answer as to when the mother no longer enjoys this injunction. If you cannot delineate this magical time frame, then by all that our system of laws holds dear, it is a requirement that each situation undergo the strictest scrutiny at trial.
I want no part of a society when ex post facto law decides life and death sanctions. Ex post facto factual findings are entirely different and apart from law. If a jury decides something is outside the perview of sanction, so be it.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:31 pmI could have said “Throw the bitch in prison until she dies” but she and I will both stand for judgment before the same God.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:31 pmWhich was funny because it’s so obviously unacceptable as a rationale. If it’s illegal to abort a 3rd trimester, a partial-birth, or a newborn baby, why should it be okay to kill one that’s in a contrived legal loophole somewhere in between? Now, I’m out for the evening at least.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:31 pmStrange, that a medical professional will perform the most heinous forms of abortion,
AD - RtR/OS! (88245d) — 12/19/2009 @ 3:43 pmyet find that the act of inserting an intravenous needle into the arm of a condemned prisoner for purposes of execution is a violation of his oath?
The post at #60 about the common law definition of live birth is pretty much the issue I figured was at play from the beginning of the thread. And like Stachio I find the bit about blanket suffocation vs non-clearing of airways to be a major distinction.
Andrew: Do you really classify those two situations under the same heading? Baby’s dead so someone needs to go to prison?
Soronel Haetir (2b4c2b) — 12/19/2009 @ 4:02 pmSoronel, if a baby dies of natural causes then there’s no need to send anyone to prison. Did I suggest otherwise?
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 4:08 pm[…] more: Mother Who Murders Newborn Can’t Be Prosecuted Share this […]
Mother Who Murders Newborn Can’t Be Prosecuted | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 12/19/2009 @ 4:08 pmnk:
I believe He is as concerned, and maybe even more concerned, with how we protect these babies than how we judge their mothers.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/19/2009 @ 4:17 pmSorry Andrew – I should have noticed the link.
carlitos (a098e3) — 12/19/2009 @ 4:37 pm“I’m from the government and I love your baby more than you do”
Obviously though that isn’t true (consider abortion rights approved by our government).
This loophole seems to take the right to choose to an extraordinarily heinous level. It reeks further of sexism as it continues to deny rights to the father of the baby in the decision making of their offspring, and clearly gives preference to the woman – even though the baby is no longer housed in her womb and can survive independently of her body.
I could have said “Throw the bitch in prison until she dies” but she and I will both stand for judgment before the same God.
Couldn’t one say this about any crime that harms or takes the life of an innocent? Of course we will both stand before God in judgment and yet does that mean we should not make judgments of these sorts while on earth? A sort of CYA on earth for the sake of future judgement thinking???
Where exactly does one decide what falls under this category of reluctance or refusal? Who gets to decide?
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/19/2009 @ 4:41 pm“Grendel was a killer”.
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:42 pm“So are we.”
A society which kills 1.4 million babies a year (that’s about 3,800 a day) is going to try this woman?
nk (df76d4) — 12/19/2009 @ 10:48 pmThat’s what the Beltway Sniper and the Unabomber and Tim McVeigh said: “A society which kills 1.4 million human beings a year (that’s about 3,800 a day) is going to try me?”
Andrew (59b742) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:03 pmDRJ:
I guess I was just joking before.
As to the topic:
When an individual in a sustenance society makes a decision on the value of a birth, he or she is making a decision based on the survivability of that society.
When an individual lives in a society that can make a collective decision that all members have access to common means for each individual’s health, then that person is making a personal decision.
In the first case, an ethical argument can be made for the action.
In the second case, you are looking at murder.
I just can’t get over the “progressive” notion that everyone deserves health care — and implicit in that — the notion that everyone should live as long as possible. Except, you know, babies.
Yes, yes, I know, the mother’s health and quality of life is paramount.
But, at some point, don’t you reach the state where the whole argument collapses because there are no more babies, because there are no more mothers?
Ag80 (37a69e) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:03 pm“A society which kills 1.4 million babies a year (that’s about 3,800 a day) is going to try this woman?
Comment by nk ”
Well, no, not if she didn’t break the law.
But you make a distinction between some murders and this murder… so surely you can see the distinction between an abortion at 3 months and suffocating a baby that is outside the mother and alive.
““I’m from the government and I love your baby more than you do””
Yes, in this case.
I feel like team NK is hiding the ball to some extent. But I am a little slow on this stuff. What’s the position you are arguing? What’s the general rule you’re using that I can apply to this case, to a murder of a 1 year old infant, and to the abortion of a true fetus?
I can see not sentencing this woman to the same punishment as they sentence more traditional murderers to (I would give her life in prison, but I understand the other side). I can see pretending this was an abortion, if you take an extreme view on what a person is. But this was like a partial birth abortion… completely unnecessary waste of life. I care that she was under duress, but if she knew this was wrong, she is responsible.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:36 pmAg80,
I agree with what you said — I think — but were we discussing this or is this a comment for another person or another thread?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/19/2009 @ 11:47 pmDRJ,
I think Ag80 is referring to this comment.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/20/2009 @ 3:38 amCount me on team Dana & Stashiu. Criminal statutes are on the books to serve as both punishments AND deterrents. How many people contemplate committing a violent crime, but decide against it when they factor in the sentence they face if caught?
Answer: I don’t know, either, but I know that it’s a number greater than zero.
If even ONE woman changes her mind about doing something like this, because she knows that she will do time if she kills her child — that works for me.
Icy Texan (522bf2) — 12/20/2009 @ 4:04 amThe theory of general detterence goes something like this, in my view:
Teacher: Mrs. Smith, little Billy is always misbehaving in class.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 5:57 amMrs. Smith: The next time he does it, hit the child sitting next to him. That will scare Billy.
*deterrence*? I usually remember my spelling early in the morning.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 5:59 amI usually lurk here but a certain poster has me creeped out. Having given birth to 2 healthy 8 pounders without the benefit of medication, I find his descriptions of childbirth, C-sections and his own experiences juvenile, disgusting, and inappropriate to the argument at hand.
Crabby (a8aaaa) — 12/20/2009 @ 7:38 amTeam Dana, all the way.
Won’t you give me the benefit of being someone who finds it hard to hurt women, Crabby?
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 8:28 amNope.
Crabby (a8aaaa) — 12/20/2009 @ 8:30 amNobody can be as cruel to a woman as another woman, that’s a fact.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 8:32 amSure, nk, let’s just allow women to kill whoever they want.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/20/2009 @ 9:30 amnk,
I don’t think “crabby” is being cruel. Women throughout the ages have willingly chosen natural childbirth, fully understanding the pain involved but opt for it it because they believe it is the best thing for their baby, which is the cornerstone of child rearing: What is the best thing I can do for this child?
As one who has done the heavy lifting of raising 3 children to adulthood and comparing that to their 3 natural childbirths, I know that pushing them into this worlds was indeed, the easy part of the job. The far more complicated, difficult and painful part was found in the day to day to weighty decisions made that would effect them for the rest of their lives.
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/20/2009 @ 10:09 amComment by Icy Texan — 12/20/2009 @ 4:04 am
“We must do it for the Children.”
“If just one child is saved/protected…”
And now, we are a Nation of Children, being protected by the Great Nanny in DC.
AD - RtR/OS! (1217bb) — 12/20/2009 @ 10:16 amCan we really trust prosecutors?
Radley Balko wrote an article on Reason.Com about people being exonerated . How can we trust the judgment of prsecutors had they decided to prosecute this woman?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/20/2009 @ 10:50 amBut how do we trust the judgment of criminal investigators when they are shown to lie time and time again?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/20/2009 @ 10:57 amThe Virginia law isn’t unusual. In Illinois a woman smothered her newborn after it was born. The jury heard testimony that the baby was crying – and they called it murder. But the appeals court threw out the conviction on the grounds that the cord might not have been cut before death. I can’t find the case right now, but I remember it from ten years ago.
Rachel (354146) — 12/20/2009 @ 11:46 amI started reading this thread when it was a baby but I was highly offended when nk started killing the baby so I quit reading it. Coming back, I see nk is still busily killing the baby.
I have one thing to say to nk on this subject: ESAD.
(That’s Eat (fecal matter) And …)
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:19 pmI know what Eat Shit And Die is, John. But I did not kill a baby. I argued against burying its mother alive. Against arbitrary, indiscriminate clods.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:25 pmejercito, that’s what lawyers and juries are for… but if this woman suffocated her child in actuality, that should be illegal., Whether this is really what happened is an interesting discussion on its own.
Don’t forget to take everything Balko says with a grain of salt after he’s been caught playing games with the truth.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:26 pmYes, nk, only an “arbitrary indiscriminate clod” would think that a woman is an adult, and therefor should be held legally accountable for cold-bloooded murder, just like her husband and anyone else in our so-called civilization.
I’m out of here now.
Andrew (59b742) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:31 pmI argued against burying its mother alive. Against arbitrary, indiscriminate clods.
No one is suggesting that the mother be buried alive, but rather the mother face a consequence for willfully taking the life of another human being. As it stands, the law seems to be on her side and this is understood. However, is that just? If you think it is, then what is your cutoff age for acceptability of mothers killing their babies? Who gets to determine that?
The legal question aside, and focusing on the moral issue, this distinction you are attempting to make isn’t easy for me to understand. Do you excuse her because the young woman just gave birth and suffered pain during it, is it that she has to live with her guilty conscience (assuming she even feels guilt), or that a baby’s life just isn’t worth the same as an adults?
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:35 pmNo, good looking Dana, just that this is one crime that were I to punish it I would be committing a crime.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:39 pmSubstitute sin for crime, if it helps.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:40 pmPlease, please, please, I want to understand you too. Do you really want to send this woman to prison?
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:42 pmDoes it make a difference if it’s a girl baby? Do women get a pass on bank robbery and DUI as well? I really don’t understand how nk’s position isn’t the arbitrary one here. As for being a clod, I plead “no contest”, but not for this thread.
From the other thread:
Don’t you dare judge them! They might have just given birth!
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:44 pmnk, I understand that. Quite seriously and personally, I understand that. However, if we let our own sin be the determining factor in which we judge others in a court of law, there would be no juries and none to judge. And event though our own sins may be reprehensible, as a society, we judge to protect and maintain standards. (although shaky in the past decades…)
All have fallen short of the glory of God, and none are righteous, not one – its all very true. But that does not mean we use that as the excuse to keep from doing the very grueling, hard work of judging when it is necessary.
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:47 pmThis isn’t the judicial system of God anyway. It’s the judicial system of man, congress, judges, etc, all from pieces of paper.
Of course we are all flawed, and that is irrelevant.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:51 pmYes. She killed her own baby, either actively or by allowing it to die. Most reasonable people would say it had been born.
Lawyer: “Technically, the way the law is written there is no crime here.”
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:52 pmRegular person: “Looks like murder to me.”
Medical expert: “Technically, because the umbilical cord was attached and the placenta wasn’t delivered, it was not born.
Regular person: “Looks born to me.”
Criminal person: “So, if I kill a woman’s baby before they cut the umbilical cord and deliver the placenta, I get a free pass?”
Regular person: “Ask the lawyer and the doctor I guess.”
Only because executing her for murder is as likely as winning the Mega Millions lottery. Clear enough?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:53 pmThen let’s just say that I’m the villager busy cooking dinner and did not give water to the three condemneds, carrying crosses, that passed outside his door.
nk (df76d4) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:55 pmI don’t know what led her to the desperate point of killing her child. That she kept the cord attached makes me suspect she was aware of the loophole and that makes it a much more calculated decision.
In light of there being newborn drop-off policies in VA (hospitals, firehouses) and that she didn’t opt for that also makes me question her motives. A friend suggested she was one of these young women who lived in the moment, and would think about it later. Later came, and the problem was no longer ignorable. So she had to *take care of it*.
Without knowing all the back story though, I would say, yes, she should serve time in prison because regardless of what led up to it, she willfully and cruelly denied the right to live to another human being. And that is categorically wrong.
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:56 pmAnd my ESAD link above, and brought down here, does not in any way link to the definition of ESAD. Follow it. Read it. Understand it. And then, nk, ESAD.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/20/2009 @ 12:59 pm“…she willfully and cruelly denied the right to live to another human being that was innocent and had done her no harm, nor harm to anyone else. And that is categorically wrong.”
IOW, no self defense, no justifiable or sane reason for this act.
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:02 pmNo, more like the guy who listens to a man defend killing his own parents by pointing out he’s an orphan and thinks, “Poor guy”.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:03 pmStash, I just loved that defense when it was trotted out by those boys’ criminal defense attorney. That was a classic. To me, that meant everything else that attorney (or that battery of attorneys?) said before or after just became bilge water.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:18 pmnk, in re-reading the comments, it appears you are now personally excluding yourself from judging her in any way because of your own sin. But earlier in the thread, it appeared you were refusing to judge the act itself as being criminal.
Are you talking two different particulars: the killing a baby as a non-crime act; and the young woman as a fellow sinner and therefore not for you to judge?
Dana (f64b7d) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:25 pmDepends on which one convinces you to give the woman a free pass. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:32 pmSociety was at the local hospital, where she should have been herself but chose not to be. I say, charge this murderous bitch for BOTH homicide AND partial birth infanticide. Any jury worth its salt will convict her of both. One conviction will be reversed on appeal, of course, but if a single court actually wants to rule that the same goddamned kid was both fully born for purposes of the partial birth infanticde law and partially born for purposes of the fully born homicide law, then at least we’ll know who to blame.
Xrlq (1cd5bb) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:40 pmHere is the context of my ESAD link since it isn’t being clicked:
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:42 pmExcuse me, BUT, has Virginia ever prosecuted a person for a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman whose fetus also died?
AD - RtR/OS! (1217bb) — 12/20/2009 @ 1:50 pmIf so, under the reasoning used here by the VA Legal System, those convictions would have to be unwound, at least as they pertain to the fetus.
What games with the truth? Balko has shown how criminal investigators have hurt innocent people time and time again.
Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 12/20/2009 @ 2:19 pmI argued against burying its mother alive. Against arbitrary, indiscriminate clods.
Comment by nk — 12/20/2009 @ 12:25 pm
— I sure hope that you aren’t including me in your group of “clods”.
Icy Texan (84cbb5) — 12/21/2009 @ 3:27 am