The curious case of canada and newborn murder.

[billc]

This is a case I heard about on the Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft radio show this morning. A woman in Canada strangled her newborn baby with a pair of thong underwear, threw the body in a neighbors yard and received a very light sentence. Here is the article...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/canada-legalizes-infanticide/

People in Canada who think killing an infant is the act of a morally bankrupt monster who deserves more time than the average murderer are getting another kick in the teeth, courtesy of Judge Joanne Veit. She let a woman convicted of murdering her newborn baby then throwing the body over her neighbor’s backyard fence

walk out of court with a suspended sentence and probation.
According to Veit the murderess is the victim:

Queen’s Bench Justice Joanne Veit rejected the Crown’s call for a four-year prison term — which she described as “essentially” seeking the maximum five-year punishment when taking into account the time Effert has already spent behind bars and under strict bail conditions.
Based on the fact infanticide has not been struck from the Criminal Code and it has no minimum penalty, Veit said she feels Canadians “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,” said Veit.


​

I’m sure. The mother in question is Katrina Effert. In 2005, she gave birth to the child alone in her parent’s basement and when the baby started to cry, she strangled the boy with a pair of thong underwear and threw his body into her neighbor’s yard. When police investigated after finding the boy’s body, she initially claimed she was a virgin, but when caught in that lie she told cops she had given the baby to her boyfriend.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I actually agree. Hell has frozen over.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx

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.

 

[Empty Hands]

Sort of. It looks like they have classified "infanticide" not as simply killing a child, but doing so in a disturbed state of mind. Sound mind and mens rea must be present in the United States as well as Canada, and from the sounds of it, someone who qualified for the "infanticide" charge in Canada might qualify for a reduced charge such as manslaughter or negligent homicide here in the USA. In fact, someone like Andrea Yates could be and was found "not guilty" by her affirmative defense of insanity. Without knowing the facts of the case, the sentence tells us little, and it doesn't tell us that the result would be different in the USA compared to Canada.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sort of. It looks like they have classified "infanticide" not as simply killing a child, but doing so in a disturbed state of mind. Sound mind and mens rea must be present in the United States as well as Canada, and from the sounds of it, someone who qualified for the "infanticide" charge in Canada might qualify for a reduced charge such as manslaughter or negligent homicide here in the USA. In fact, someone like Andrea Yates could be and was found "not guilty" by her affirmative defense of insanity. Without knowing the facts of the case, the sentence tells us little, and it doesn't tell us that the result would be different in the USA compared to Canada.

If I am reading it correctly, it appears that the assumption is that if a women is "...she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child...," it is presumed that she is non compos mentis. That is somewhat different from a lesser offense based upon a non compos mentis ruling. IANAL and I certainly am no expert on Canadian law, but that's the way I'm reading it.

Such a law was proposed in the US, but not adopted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#North_America_2

In 2009, Texas state representative Jessica Farrar proposed legislation that would define infanticide as a distinct and lesser crime than homicide.[134] Under the terms of the proposed legislation, if jurors concluded that a mother's "judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth," they would be allowed to convict her of the crime of infanticide, rather than murder.[135] The maximum penalty for infanciticide would be two years in prison.[135] Farrar's introduction of this bill prompted liberal bioethics scholar Jacob M. Appel to call her "the bravest politician in America."[135]

To the best of my knowledge, an 'insanity defense' in the USA requires the accused to prove that he or she has no capacity to defend themselves or understand that what they did was wrong; it is never presumed based upon something else happening, such as giving birth.

 

[Nomad]

As a Canadian, one of the things that offends me most is the light to laughable sentences frequently passed out by the Canadian Judicial system (such as it is) for heinous crimes of this sort.

One problem they're seeing now is that criminals are deliberately delaying their trials (sometimes for years), since time served for most crimes prior to conviction counts as double towards the actual sentencing.

There are a lot of wonderful things about Canada; how they deal with violent criminals definitely isn't one of them, IMHO.

 

[Empty Hands]

If I am reading it correctly, it appears that the assumption is that if a women is "...she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child...," it is presumed that she is non compos mentis. That is somewhat different from a lesser offense based upon a non compos mentis ruling. IANAL and I certainly am no expert on Canadian law, but that's the way I'm reading it.

The language that struck me was "...her mind is then disturbed." It read to me not that any woman subsequent to birthing a child could be held non compos mentis, but rather that if the birth led to a disturbed mind and then murder of a child, the woman would be held to the lesser crime - not that any post-partum woman would so qualify. IANAL either, just reasoning based on what you quoted.

 

[Monroe]

As a Canadian, I hope that the judge saw something during the trial that in some way justified the sentence. It sounds unlikely. But one can hope.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As a Canadian, I hope that the judge saw something during the trial that in some way justified the sentence. It sounds unlikely. But one can hope.

From other articles I read on the case, the woman was twice-convicted by a jury of 2nd degree murder and sentenced to life in prison (she got one retrial due to errors by the judge in the first case, but was convicted again). A higher court in Canada reduced the conviction to infanticide. So the jury in both her trials felt she was guilty of 2nd degree murder.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/index.html?subject=Katrina+Effert&type=Person

A

n Alberta woman who strangled her newborn baby was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years -- after the judge rejected her lawyer’s controversial call for a mistrial

...

Katrina Effert’s lawyer was incredulous that a court would find his client guilty of murder. It was “perverse,” Peter Royal said. “A miscarriage of justice.”

Effert had strangled her hours-old son Rodney, he conceded. Dumped the body, wrapped in towels, into a neighbour’s yard. Lied to police.

But she was, he said, no murderer. And indeed, Effert’s life sentence, given yesterday, for second-degree murder, marked a novel turn for Canadian law — the latest legal step away from special Criminal Code considerations for new mothers, and toward holding women who kill their babies in the emotional, hormonal hours and weeks after birth, fully responsible for their actions.

“Historically, when presented with a choice between infanticide and murder, juries traditionally chose infanticide,” says Emma Cunliffe, a University of British Columbia law professor.

The part I bolded above I believe shows that the 'infanticide' modifier is applied to 'new mothers' who are presumed to be non compos mentis, not due to special circumstances of being a new mother AND non compos mentis.

However, THIS makes it appear differently:

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l.../edm_effert_110502/20110502/?hub=EdmontonHome

The murder conviction of an Alberta woman who admitted to killing her newborn son has now been overturned.

Katrina Effert was found guilty of second-degree murder and received a life sentence with no parole for at least ten years. She admitted to strangling her newborn son hours after giving birth in her parent's home.

In a nine-page document, Alberta's Court of Appeal has found the jury could not have fully understood the evidence of two mental health experts.

Both experts said when a then 19-year-old Effert gave birth in her parents' home in 2005, and subsequently strangled her newborn, "her mind was disturbed."

Now, the murder conviction has been set aside and in its place, she will be sentenced for infanticide.

However, I will say that in the USA, most appeals courts would not set aside a conviction because they felt that the jury "could not have fully understood" anything. Courts are very hesitant to set aside jury findings - Juries actually outrank judges and courts in many cases, unless there are other circumstances. That would be quite unusual in the US, I think.

 

[Monroe]

So the Appeal court determined that the jury didn't understand the evidence. I'm willing to accept that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So the Appeal court determined that the jury didn't understand the evidence. I'm willing to accept that.

Well, things are different here in the US, I guess. I'd be angry if an appeals court ruled that a jury "just didn't understand." Juries are supreme; they are the direct voice of the citizens. Unless the jury broke the law or some other factor, they should not be overruled by a court. But I can't say anything, really; this is about Canada's laws. I understand they do things differently.