Infanticide should be legal, Oxford experts say

Stephen Adams, 29 Feb 2012

A group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion, and should be allowed even when there is nothing physically wrong with the child.

Oxford University has argued that killing young babies is no different from abortion Photo: Alamy

Publication of the article, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, part of the British Medical Journal group, has raised a storm of protest.

However, the journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, has defended his decision, saying it was the job of such publications to air all sides of all arguments – however radical.

Two former Oxford associates of his, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, argued that there was no moral difference between abortion and killing babies in their article, After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”.

They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing”.
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford.
Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
Giubilini, a former Cambridge University philosophy post-graduate, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – of which Prof Savulescu is also director – titled What is the problem with euthanasia.
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University.
Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
Defending the decision to publish, Prof Savulescu, saying that arguments in favour of infanticide were “largely not new”.
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he said: “the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
He pointed out that the authors had received death threats, and called those who made abusive and threatening posts “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This "debate" has been example an example of "witch ethics" - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her.
"It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Infanticide-should-be-legal-Oxford-experts-say.html

INFANTICIDE claimed: Australia: Fourth Australian inquest opens in 1980 dingo-baby mystery

Kristen Gelineau  Feb. 24, 2012

A coroner on Friday opened Australia’s fourth inquest into the most notorious and bitterly controversial legal drama in the nation’s history: the 1980 death of a 9-week-old baby whose parents say was taken by a dingo from her tent in the Australian Outback.
Azaria Chamberlain’s mother, Lindy, was convicted and later cleared of murdering her and has always maintained that a wild dog took the baby. She and her ex-husband, Michael Chamberlain, are hoping fresh evidence they have gathered about dingo attacks on children will convince Northern Territory coroner Elizabeth Morris and end relentless speculation that has followed them for 32 years.
Anne Lade, a former police officer hired by the court to investigate the case, told a packed courtroom that in the years since Azaria disappeared, there have been numerous dingo attacks on humans, some of them fatal. Rex Wild, a lawyer assisting the coroner, described several of the attacks and said he believed the evidence showed that a dingo could have been responsible for Azaria’s death.
“Although it (a dingo killing a child) may have been regarded as unlikely in 1980 ... it shouldn’t be by 2011-12,” he said. “With the additional evidence in my submission, your honour should accept on the balance of probabilities that the dingo theory is the correct one.”
Ms. Morris adjourned the hearing without issuing a decision, and did not say when she would release her findings.
Azaria’s death certificate still lists her cause of death as “unknown.” The Chamberlains say they want to set the record straight on behalf of their daughter.
“It gives me hope this time that Australians will finally be warned and realize that dingoes are a dangerous animal,” Ms. Chamberlain said outside the courthouse in the Northern Territory capital, Darwin. “I also hope that this will give a final finding which closes the inquest into my daughter’s death, which so far has been standing open and unfinished.”
Azaria vanished from her tent in the Outback on Aug. 17, 1980, during a family vacation to Ayers Rock, the giant red monolith now known by its Aboriginal name Uluru. Fellow campers told police they heard a low growl followed by a baby’s cry shortly before Ms. Chamberlain – who had been making dinner at a nearby barbecue area – went to check on her daughter.
Ms. Chamberlain said she saw a dingo run from the tent and disappear into the darkness. There were dingo prints outside the tent, and spots of blood on the bedding inside. Upon seeing Azaria’s empty bassinet, Ms. Chamberlain screamed, “The dingo’s got my baby!” – a line made famous by the Meryl Streep movie, A Cry in the Dark, based on the case.
Azaria’s body was never found, though her torn and bloodied jumpsuit turned up in the surrounding desert.
Officials, doubtful that a dingo was strong enough to drag away a baby, charged Ms. Chamberlain with murder. Prosecutors said she slit Azaria’s throat in the family car – which initial forensic tests said was splashed with baby’s blood – and buried her in the desert. Ms. Chamberlain was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Years later, more sophisticated tests found that the “blood” in the car was a combination of milk and a chemical sprayed during manufacture. Three years into Ms. Chamberlain’s prison sentence, a jacket Azaria had been wearing was found by chance near a dingo den. Ms. Chamberlain was released from prison and her conviction was overturned.
Still, three separate coroner’s inquests have failed to agree on a cause of death for Azaria. The last inquest, held in 1995, returned an inconclusive finding, with the coroner saying there was not enough evidence to prove a dingo was responsible.
Since then, the Chamberlains have gathered new evidence of around a dozen dingo attacks on children, three of them fatal, said their lawyer, Stuart Tipple. That evidence was presented to Ms. Morris for consideration at Friday’s inquest.
“When you actually look at what has already been given, and you consider the new evidence, we say you are compelled to make a finding that Azaria was taken by a dingo,” Mr. Tipple told The Associated Press.
In court, Michael Chamberlain fought back tears as he spoke of the nightmarish aftermath of his daughter’s death.
“Since the loss of Azaria I have had an abiding fear and paranoia about safety around dingoes,” he said. “They send a shudder up my spine. It is a hell I have to endure.”
Australians have followed the case closely since it began, and most have strong opinions. Although public support for Ms. Chamberlain has grown over the years, many still doubt that a dingo could have killed Azaria.
“I think that the people that don’t think for themselves aren’t ever going to be convinced, and it really doesn’t matter what you show them,” Mr. Tipple told the AP. “I could show them a video of the dingo taking the baby and it wouldn’t convince them – because they’ve made their mind up.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fourth-australian-inquest-opens-in-1980-dingo-baby-mystery/article2348514/

INFANTICIDE: Norway: Yasmin Chaudhry

6 Jan 2012

Yasmin Chaudhry, who is from Norway killed the one year old by plunging her, head first into water during the video conversation which took place at 3am.

According to a report by The Sun, the boyfriend watched the murder from London as the child was held under the surface until she had stopped breathing.

Chaudhry, 26, reportedly told the police that the couple had been discussing how to discipline the child for “disobeying her”. After she had realised the baby had stopped breathing, Chaudhry put in an emergency call, telling paramedics that the girl had fallen into the bucket by accident.

Following her arrest on suspicion of murder, Chaudhry claimed that her boyfriend, who is not the child’s father – told her to do it. Yet both deny wanting to kill the baby.

Police officers flew from Oslo to Britain to question the British man – who has not been named - with the help of Scotland Yard shortly before Christmas.

Norwegian police prosecutor Kristin Rusdel told the newspaper
‘They have the same story, but with some differences’
‘She says he instructed her to do it, whereas he says that they more or less figured it out together after talking about how to discipline her’.
‘He admits he saw it over the internet but the intention was never to kill her. They were both scared and decided to cover it up’.
The pair had met once in read life and had carried the relationship on over the internet for over a year.
Chaudhry’s five year old son was taken into care following her arrest.
Yesterday she was remanded until February 4.
Ms Rusdel confirmed to The Sun that a preliminary murder charge had been filed against the Briton adding that the police were considering extradition.
The baby’s father now lives in Pakistan after splitting with the mother, his lawyer commenting that ‘he is of course, very shocked’.
If convicted, the pair will face a minimum of eight years behind bars.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8997132/Norwegian-Mother-drowns-baby-while-British-boyfriend-watches-online.html

FILICIDE (cleared): Florida: Casey Anthony still in the news

ORLANDO, Fla, Dec 30 (Reuters) - Casey Anthony can refuse to answer questions about the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee while she appeals her convictions related to the child's passing, a Florida judge has ruled.
Anthony, 25, was found not guilty in July of killing Caylee, but is appealing convictions on four charges of lying to detectives in the case.
One of the convictions was for falsely claiming that Caylee was kidnapped by a nanny named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.
A woman named Zenaida Gonzalez has sued Casey Anthony for defamation. In October, Anthony asserted her constitutional right to remain silent and avoid incriminating herself when she was questioned about the death under oath by lawyers in the suit.
Gonzalez's lawyers then asked Judge Lisa Munyon to order Anthony to talk. But Munyon denied their request in a ruling issued on Thursday.
"Federal and state courts have long recognized that the fifth amendment privilege may be properly asserted during the pendency of the direct appeal," Munyon wrote in her order.
The judge said that constitutional right applied in Anthony's case. The issue can be reconsidered after Anthony's appeal concludes, the judge wrote.
Gonzalez's lawyer could not be reached immediately for comment.
Anthony, who is living in an undisclosed location and serving a year of probation on check fraud charges, faces several lawsuits stemming from her daughter's disappearance and death.
Texas EquuSearch sued for damages to recoup money spent during a five-month search for Caylee. Former meter reader Roy Kronk, who found Caylee's remains in woods near the Anthony family's Orlando-area home, claimed in a suit this month that Anthony's lawyers defamed him by trying to raise suspicions about his involvement in the toddler's death.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/casey-anthony-civil-trial_n_1176471.html#s294277&title=Casey_Anthony_Personal

FILICIDE: by animals

 Dec 11 2011

Donovan Vincent Staff Reporter

 

Female polar bear Aurora killed two of her cubs in October and had a third one taken away. She has been at the Toronto zoo since 2001.

STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO

 

Are they bad mothers for abandoning, injuring, or even killing their newborns? Take Aurora, the popular female polar bear at the Toronto zoo, for example. She killed two of her cubs in October, and had a third one taken away by zoo staff for hand-rearing to prevent a similar fate. She did the same thing the year prior, killing two of her cubs at birth by partially eating them. It is well known that males will attack or eat their young and others, but mothers failing to care for their young, and animal infanticide in general is a touchy, almost taboo subject for major zoos, including Toronto’s. After all it doesn’t exactly drive attendance. Yet it’s a phenomenon staff deal with and one that can be traumatizing for zookeepers, say Toronto zoo officials. “It’s not uncommon, even with domestic animals. Some mothers just aren’t good (at being) mothers,” explains Dr. Graham Crawshaw, the Toronto zoo’s senior veterinarian. “Anyone who works with wild animals knows this isn’t uncommon or a reflection on this zoo, or zoos generally. It’s animals. Some animals do better than others. You can’t predict,” explained Crawshaw, who was reticent to discuss the issue with the Star. Infanticide in the wild is common and occurs for a variety of reasons, says Mark Fitzpatrick assistant professor in the biology department at the University of Toronto, and an expert in animal behaviour, mating and aggression. For example, in the case of lions, a new male might take over a pride and kill all the offspring. “That will reset all the females into estrous, and he can maximize his reproductive success by mating with those females. That sort of scenario also happens with Colobine monkeys,’’ says Fitzpatrick. But such behaviour is typically driven by male aggression, he says. “Males are more likely to do the killing. With females it’s less common,” Fitzpatrick says. One theory found in scientific literature on parental infanticide suggests it’s part of “normal’’ maternal behaviour where a female can adjust her litter size to suit her ability to raise offspring. Or, as Fitzpatrick notes, the female may do it because she simply wants to mate with a new male. Animal rights activists charge that captivity is a major source of anxiety causing females to destroy their young. “I think it’s fair to say that in most cases of infanticide, it’s related to stressors, whether it’s in the wild or in captivity,’’ says Zoocheck Canada director Julie Woodyer. She says zoos claim that when the keep animals in captivity they’ve removed “stressors’’ that animals would face in the wild, such as lack of food. “One of the primary reasons polar bears would kill their own cubs in the wild is because there isn’t enough food even for them to eat,’’ says Woodyer. But this problem doesn’t exist in captivity, she says, yet moms such as Aurora are still experiencing difficulties rearing offspring, Woodyer notes. “Once you remove those stressors these problems shouldn’t exist, but they do because zoos have created different kinds of stressors for the animals because they haven’t evolved to cope in that small environment. Polar bears are wide ranging carnivores that don’t do well when you confine them,’’ Woodyer argues. To learn more about infanticide and maternal care issues with polar bears, the Toronto zoo is collecting the animals’ fecal and urine samples and trying to get a handle on their reproductive cycles and pregnancy. Toronto is working with other zoos, which in turn are collaborating with biologists and researchers working in the wild. There are challenges however to studying maternal care in the wild because of the secretive nature of den sites for polar bears and other species. Crawshaw argues one theory cannot fully explain infanticide and failure to rear issues involving females. He believes it’s largely tied to the disposition of the individual creature. To make his point he describes the unusual maternal care case with Nokanda, the late female white lion who abandoned six of her cubs. On two separate occasions she abandoned her newborns immediately after zoo staff separated them from her to do veterinary checks to ensure the offspring were healthy. “(The first time) we put them back with her … she never touched the cubs again ... She didn’t want anything to do with them. That was enough disturbance for her,’’ explains Crawshaw. Zoo staff have separated moms from their cubs — other lions, tigers, cheetahs etc. — and those moms were absolutely fine once their pups were returned, he says. In the second batch the following year, Toronto zoo staff waited 10 weeks before vaccinating the other set of Nokanda’s cubs — she’d been a good mother to them up to that point. “We took them out, gave them their shots, checked them out (but) she never touched them again. That was that animal. We had to feed them. Now they’re big strapping animals. “Again, each animal is different,’’ says Crawshaw. As for Aurora, she was an inexperienced mom the first time she had babies, Crawshaw said, and was in an unfamiliar environment in the zoo’s new enclosure. Aurora came to the zoo in 2001 after she and sister Nikita, both cubs at the time, were found wandering the wilderness alone, their mom apparently shot by a hunter. They were loaned to a polar bear habitat in Northern Ontario, and returned to Toronto in 2009. In the past the zoo has had other polar bears who failed to raise their young, staff say. Troubled mothers at the Toronto Zoo  • Female polar bear Aurora killed two of her cubs in October and had a third one taken away. She did the same thing in 2010, killing two newborn cubs.  •  Tatiana, a Siberian tiger, gave birth to two cubs in 2000. One was found dead, the other alive but missing a leg that had been bitten off by mom. The cub was euthanized.  •  Nokanda, a female white lion that passed away this summer, gave birth to four cubs in 1999 and two the following year, and abandoned all of them. Three in the first litter died, and one needed to be hand-reared. Two in the second litter required hand-rearing.  •  Erin, a Himalayan tahr (wild goat), abandoned one of her two surviving babies, which needed to be hand-reared. http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1100493--when-moms-kill-their-young

FILICIDE (adoptive):Investigators put U.S. adoptive couple who killed Russian boy on wanted list

Photo Ministry of social development of the Chelyabinsk region

MOSCOW, November 21 (RIA Novosti)

The Russian Investigative Committee put on Monday the U.S. couple who was convicted by a U.S. court in the involuntarily manslaughter of their adopted Russian son on the international wanted list.

A Pennsylvania court ruled on Friday that Michael and Nannette Craver, who were found guilty in the involuntarily manslaughter of their adopted Russian son, Ivan, must serve from 16 months to four years. Since they had already spent about eighteen months in jail, they were released from the courtroom.
The Investigative Committee has handed documents on the case to the Russian Interpol office to put the couple on the international wanted list. The investigators also appealed to the Moscow Basmanny District Court to put the Cravers behind bars.
Seven-year-old Nathaniel Craver (Ivan Skorobogatov), died in August 2009 at a hospital in Pennsylvania. Doctors said the boy died of injuries and malnutrition. They discovered more than 80 injuries on his body, including 20 on his head.
The Cravers were arrested in February 2010 and denied all the charges brought against them, saying the boy suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome and attachment disorders. The couple's defense said his injuries were self-inflicted.
Prosecutors demanded the death sentence for the couple. The jury however found them partially guilty, dismissing the charges of the deliberate murder of the boy.
The Russian Foreign Ministry on Saturday slammed the sentence, calling it “flagrant irresponsibility” of the U.S. judicial system.
Since 1991, a total of 17 adopted Russian children have died worldwide as a result of beatings or negligence, according to official Russian statistics.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20111121/168906014.html

FILICIDE (multiple): Michigan: Sharon Hinojosa Sentenced to Life

By ED WHITE   11/30/11

DETROIT -- Calling it a "horrendous" crime, a judge sentenced a Detroit-area mother to life in prison Wednesday for setting a fire that trapped and killed two of her children in a mobile home.

Sharon Hinojosa says the tragedy in Huron Township was an accident. But prosecutors accused her of intentionally setting the fire in a bid to improve her relationship with a boyfriend, the father of another child who escaped the blaze in Hinojosa's arms.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Daniel Hathaway said Hinojosa's acts in 2009 "constituted a complete betrayal of what being a mother stands for."
She was convicted earlier this month of first-degree murder in the deaths of son Anthony, 4, and daughter Alayna, 3. The judge said it was "horrendous" and "heinous."
Hinojosa, 31, turned to the courtroom gallery, apologized and said she loved her kids.
"You think you're mourning? I'm mourning, too," she said.
The remarks angered relatives of the victims who moments earlier told the judge about the impact on their lives. Alayna's grandmother, Denise Jones, said it was "cowardly" for Hinojosa to "disregard these children like a bag of garbage."
She said she hopes Hinojosa in prison hears her children asking, "What did we do to you?" to deserve an awful death.
Hinojosa's attorney, Bryan Sherer, declined to comment.Lawyer Ira Harris, reading a statement on behalf of Anthony's grandparents, said the boy often talked about being old enough to ride a bus to school.
"Even wild animals would go to great lengths to protect their young," Harris said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/sharon-hinojosa-sentenced-to-life_n_1122762.html

FILICIDE: Document with references

The United States has one of the highest rates of filicide with an estimated two-hundred

and fifty to three hundred children murdered by their parents each year.

belief perpetuated by media coverage, fathers kill their children nearly as often as mothers.

1 Contrary to popular2

While fathers tend to be more violent, both mothers and fathers commit filicide by using highly

physical acts, such as beating, drowning, poisoning, shaking, stabbing, or suffocating their

children.

“certain ‘craziness’ in both genders—they betray an intense passion and a lack of planning.”

3 Regardless of how a parent ultimately engages in filicide,4 their methods reveal a5

I. SOCIAL RESPONSES TO FILICIDE

Despite the similarity between genders, society shows more outrage and disdain towards

mothers who commit filicide, often brushing aside the fathers who commit the same heinous

act.

which define women’s roles as “passive, ‘saintly stoics who never succum[b] to fury, frustration,

or greed.”

to reconcile this discrepancy, the media portrays maternal filicide as a “freak occurrence” and

explains away the mother’s actions by her classifying as “mad” (mentally ill) or “bad”

(evil/unfeminine).

6 This gendered reaction is fueled by traditional notions of motherhood and femininity,7 Filicidal mothers, however, are antithetical to these traditional notions. In an attempt8

Historically, society has responded to mothers who kill their children in one of three

ways – denial,

adopted a hybrid approach of punishment and denial.

9 punishment,10 or prevention.11 Meyer and Oberman note the United States has12 First, society “studiously ignore[s]” both

1

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18151310; Susan Donaldson James,

Psychotic

psychotic/story?id=13366937

Electra Draper, Parents Who Kill Their Kids Not Always Insane, Experts Say, DENVER POST, May 27, 2011,Mommy Murderers: Often Altruistic or, ABC NEWS, Apr. 13, 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/leshawn-armstrong-case-mom-murderersaltruistic-

2

3

4

dispose of their children’s bodies hundreds of miles away from the home, mothers dispose of their children’s

corpses in or near the home and do so in a "womblike" fashion by swaddling, submerging in water, or wrapping the

body in plastic.

Draper, supra note 1.Dahlia Lithwick, When Parents Kill, SLATE, March 12, 2002, http://www.slate.com/id/2063086/Research also shows mothers and fathers differ in the way they dispose of their children’s corpses. While fathersId.

5

Id.

6

F

See Elizabeth Rapaport, Mad Women and Desperate Girls: Infanticide and Child Murder in Law and Myth, 33ORDHAM URB. L. J. 527, 529 (2006).

7

Disorder in Cases of Maternal Infanticide and Filicide

Heather Leigh Stangle, Murderous Madonna: Femininity, Violence, and the Myth of Postpartum Mental, 50 WILLIAM & MARY L. REV. 699; 706 (2008); HILARY

N

ERONI, THE VIOLENT WOMAN: FEMININITY, NARRATIVE, AND VIOLENCE IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN CINEMA

59 (2005).

8

CHERYL L. MEYER & MICHELLE OBERMAN, MOTHERS WHO KILL THEIR CHILDREN 169 (2001).

9

efficient way of dealing with women who were unable to cope with the stress and struggles of motherhood.

176.

Throughout history, denial has proven to be the most popular approach because ignoring filicide is the most costId. at

10

such, perpetrators deserve swift and severe punishment; however, juries and judges are often reluctant to adopt and

enforce this approach.

Societies that adopt the punishment approach believe filicide is no different from any other violent crime, and asId.

11

availability of social programs. Although this approach has proven to be successful, the extremely high cost may

make it impractical.

The prevention approach is aimed at developing policies to prevent filicide by increasing awareness and theId.

the frequency of infanticide and the underlying patterns prevalent in contemporary cases.

However, when a parent actually commits filicide, society seeks the harshest punishment.

Over time, as the facts of the case evolve, our collective anger subsides, and we are satisfied with

the “just punishment” handed out by the judge or jury hearing the case.

II. LEGAL RESPONSES TO FILICIDE

Gender stereotypes and traditional notions of motherhood also affect the legal system’s

responses to mothers who kill their children. Mothers are less likely to be prosecuted than

fathers

psychiatric treatment after the offense but before trial.

psychiatric pleas, while the majority of fathers plead involuntary manslaughter– a plea which

does not require an abnormal state of mind.

commit filicide suffer equally from psychological disorders.

women is also prevalent in sentencing. Mothers are more likely to be committed to a mental

facility, while fathers are more likely to be executed or sent to prison.

sentenced to prison tended to have shorter sentences than fathers.

16 and more likely to be released on bail.17 They are also more likely to be offered18 Likewise, a majority of mothers utilized19 Yet, studies indicate mothers and fathers who20 The more lenient treatment of21 The mothers who were22

In support of differential treatment for men and women, some countries have passed

Infanticide Acts.

avoidance of the death penalty when a mother commits filicide.

similar protections to fathers who commit filicide. Modern debate on Infanticide Acts centers

around whether postpartum mental illness is sufficiently different from other mental illness

suffered by men and nonpregnant women (e.g., affective psychosis, schizophrenia), such that

postpartum mental illness deserves special treatment within the legal system. The United States

legal system has been hesitant to adopt such a legal view, and mothers are required to assert a

defense of postpartum mental illness within the framework of traditional defenses.

a.

To negate the intent based on insanity, involuntary act, or diminished capacity. Although there is a gender

1

16

al,

P

23 Such acts provide for the lower charge of manslaughter as well as the24 However, no act providesFramework of Defensesmens rea of homicide, men and women alike must prove lack of criminalId.Only forty-six percent of mothers were prosecuted, while ninety percent of fathers were prosecuted. Orthwein, et.Filicide: Gender Bias in California Defense Attorneys’ Perception of Motive and Defense Strategies, 17SYCHIATRY, PSYCHOL. & L. 523, 527 (2010).

17

Fifty percent of mothers were granted bail, while no fathers were granted bail. Id.

18

Fifty-four percent of mothers were offered psychiatric treatment compared to thirty percent of fathers. Id.

19

children within one year of birth are temporarily deprived of self-control by mental illness induced by childbirth.

Critics argue the Infanticide Act is based on the inaccurate assumption that all mothers who kill their young children

suffer from mental illness. In reality, empirical research indicates few filicidal mothers suffer from postpartum

mental illness. Furthermore, the gender-specific approach ignores that filicidal fathers are just as likely as mothers

to suffer from mental illness. Abigail Wong,

10 M

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/1-2/36 (last visited Oct. 30, 2011).

The British Infanticide Act formalizes the view of filicidal mothers as “mad.” It presumes mothers who kill theirFilicide and Mothers Who Suffer From Postpartum Mental Disorders,ICH. ST. J. MED. & L. 570, 587 (2006). For full text of the British Infanticide Act, see Infanticide Act 1938,

24

1098, 1108 (2000).

Velma Dobson & Bruce D. Sales, The Science of Infanticide and Mental Illness, 6 PSYCHOL., PUB. POL’Y & L.

3

disparity between the number of mothers and the number of fathers utilizing the insanity defense,

the two insanity defense standards—the

are gender-neutral on their face. Under

from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing and as a result (1) did not know the

nature of the act being committed or (2) did not know the act was wrong.

focuses on cognition, and critics of the

whether the accused knew right from wrong during the commission of the crime.

M’Naghten test and the Model Penal Code (MPC) test–M’Naghten, the accused must show he or she suffered25 This approachM’Naghten approach argue it is too difficult to determine26

The MPC takes a similar but slightly different approach. Rather than focusing solely on

the cognitive aspects of the accused’s behavior, the MPC also incorporates volitional aspects of

behavior.

the time of the killing and as a result lacked the substantial capacity to (1) appreciate the

criminality or wrongfulness of the act or (2) conform his or her conduct to the requirements of

the law.

recognizes mental illness may affect the mind in numerous ways.

defendants may understand the criminality of the act but still be found insane because of an

inability to control their actions.

27 The accused must demonstrate he or she suffered from a mental disease or defect at28 This approach is thought to be more flexible than the M’Naghten Test because it29 Under the MPC test,30

In addition to the insanity defense, defendants may also assert an Involuntary Act

Defense. Under an Involuntary Act Defense, defendants must demonstrate (1) they suffered

from a mental or physical disability, and (2) their conduct was not the product of their deliberate

actions.

a level that the accused no longer had control of his or her body or actions.

31 The critical aspect of this defense is proving the severity of the disability arises to such32

Finally, the accused may assert a Diminished Capacity Defense. Under this defense,

defendants must prove their mental illness made it impossible for them to possess the intent

required under the criminal statute.

is mitigated to a lesser offense.

culpability of the accused is eliminated, and the conviction is prevented.

33 If the defense is successful, the culpability of the accused34 In the rare instance where there is no lesser offense, the35

b.

Fitting Postpartum Mental Disorders into the Framework of Defenses

Theoretically, postpartum mental illness easily fits into the existing paradigm of defenses.

However, in practice the use of postpartum mental illness as a defense against filicide is not so

clear cut.

defense to be supported with a “recognized” disorder.

however, has yet to recognize postpartum mental illness as a codeable mental disorder.

36 All three defenses – insanity, involuntary act, and diminished capacity – require the37 The American Psychiatric Association,38 Thus,

25

Judith Macfarlane, Criminal Defense in Cases of Infanticide & Neonaticide, in INFANTICIDE: PSYCHOSOCIAL AND

L

EGAL PERSPECTIVES ON MOTHERS WHO KILL 133, 145 (Margaret G. Spinelli, ed. 2003).

31

Macfarlane,

Wong, supra note 26 at 584.For example, the involuntary act defense would be used when an individual commits murder while sleepwalking.supra note 28.

postpartum mental illness alone is not sufficient to trigger any of the traditional defenses.39

Macfarlane notes these women must rely on other disorders, which may not provide a full and

complete picture of their mental state at the commission of the crime.

are rarely successful.

40 In general, such defenses41

c.

Alternative Approaches

If the traditional framework of defenses does not seem like a viable option, filicidal

parents may still have other choices available to them. For example, some states may allow the

accused to prove Extreme Mental and Emotional Disturbance (EMED). Under this doctrine, the

fact finder takes an objective-subjective view of the actor’s circumstances as the actor believed

them to be.

an immediate passionate and violent reaction, then the charges will be reduced from murder to

manslaughter.

arguably acting with EMED, even if they understand the illegality or wrongfulness of their act at

the time.

Alternatively, mothers may choose to utilize the Good Mother Defense. The Good

Mother Defense is not a recognized defense, but rather a strategy articulated by Elizabeth

Rapaport, a University of New Mexico law professor. This approach preys on the tendency of

jurors to find “madness” as the most plausible and least upsetting explanation for a virtuous

mother’s behavior.

“mad” even if she doesn’t meet the rigid insanity defense standards, and the jury will in turn

mitigate the punishment as a result of the perceived madness.

filicidal mother’s fate rests more on the defense’s ability to prove she was a good mother, rather

than the prosecution’s ability to prove the elements of the alleged crime.

CONCLUSION

Social judgments of mothers who kill their children are often paradoxical. While juries

and the general public rarely give credence to a mother’s insanity defense, mothers who commit

filicide often receive less harsh sentences then fathers who commit filicide. Some commentators

attribute this phenomenon to society’s anxiety about female sexuality and motherhood.

42 If the accused can show he or she was provoked by external stimuli that prompted43 Thus, parents who are convinced they have been possessed by Satan are44 When confronted with a “good” mother, the jury will find the mother is45 Thus, Rapaport urges that a46

Filicidal mothers threaten traditional notions and values of motherhood and femininity, and

society’s stereo-type driven understanding of filicide fuels a media frenzy obsessed with whether

the mother is “mad” or “bad.” However, this excessive preoccupation with female deviance

shifts the focus of the discussion from protecting children to notions of motherhood. The

question of how society can best protect children who find themselves at risk of being harmed by

their own parent is strikingly absent from the discussion.

the defense).

in Ohio the insanity defense is only successful fifteen percent of the time due to the general public’s skepticism ofPhillip Resnick, The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity on Trial, 55 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 147, 153--54 (2007) (noting that

42

Wong, supra note 26, at 584.

Rapaport, supra note 6, at 559.http://familylaw.uoregon.edu/docs/mothersbackgroundpaper.pdf>Id. at 530.

“Mad” or “Bad”: Judging Mothers Who Kill Their Children

FILICIDE: Missouri: Shelby Dasher charged

Sandy Wallace, November 16, 2011  

The first reports about Tyler Dasher on Tuesday were that he was reported missing from his crib by his distraught mother, Shelby Dasher.
Hours after 13-month old Tyler was reported missing, his body was found near a cemetery a mile from his house in Affton, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis.
Now the horrible truth is known.  Tyler was a victim of filicide, murder by a parent.  Shelby Dasher admitted to police on Wednesday that she beat her son to death and disposed of his body.
According to St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch, Shelby Dasher stated that Tyler "wouldn't lay down, wouldn't go to sleep" and that she beat him to death.
Shelby Dasher joins a score of infamous mothers and fathers who have murdered their own children.  For those who lovingly care for their children, this crime is unimaginable.
Yet every day 3-5 children are killed by a parent.  Homicide is one of the leading causes of death for children under age four.
Of the 49 women currently on death row, 11 killed children.  The killing of newborns is the most common case of mothers who murder their child.
Statistics show that the day a child is born is the day they are most likely to be killed.
Mothers who kill their child more often kill newborns and young children.  Fathers who kill their child are more likely to kill the entire family, an act called familicide.
Mothers who kill their infant child are more likely to share some similarities:
Higher than average rates of depression

• Young mothers
• Lack of parental experience
• Stress from external sources

Some stresses the mothers face are poverty, unemployment, mental illness, and marital problems.  Mothers who kill older children frequently suffer from mental illness.
But many mothers, especially young mothers, suffer from these and other stresses without killing their children.  Why to parents kill children?
Generally, mothers or fathers who commit filicide fall into one of five categories:

• Mother plans or tries to commit suicide and feels children will be better off going with her
• Parent is acutely psychotic
• Parent is getting rid of an unwanted baby, usually a newborn
• Fatally beats their child to death
• Kills to get revenge against a spouse

There are organizations nationwide to help parents deal with the stress of raising a child.  In Virginia, the organization Prevent Child Abuse Virginia is one such organization.  http://preventchildabuseva.org/index.htm

PCAV offers both direct services and education about positive parenting including the Healthy Families Virginia which focuses on many services to new parents.
There are many places Shelby Dasher could have turned for help: family, friends, and community organizations.  Sadly, her son paid the ultimate price.
http://www.examiner.com/motherhood-in-roanoke/the-killing-of-tyler-dasher-when-parents-snap

INFANTICIDE (multiple): Canada: Merdeith Borowiec charged second degree murder

dawn walton :  Nov. 22, 2011

Already charged with attempting to murder her newborn son by tossing him into a dumpster, a 30-year-old Calgary woman is now accused of killing two babies she gave birth to previously, although their bodies haven’t been found.
Meredith Katharine Borowiec, who has been in custody since she was charged last week with a number of offences related to the abandoned infant, appeared briefly in provincial court Tuesday morning to answer to two new charges of second-degree murder.
Police allege that Ms. Borowiec gave birth at home to a boy on Oct. 19, 2010, and threw him in a garbage bin outside her northwest apartment. Passersby, including the infant’s father, who didn’t know his girlfriend was pregnant, rescued the crying child, who didn’t suffer any negative consequences from his ordeal.
The baby is not in the custody of his father and has been placed in a “healthy home,” said Staff Sergeant Kelly Campbell of Calgary’s child abuse unit. She called the year-long investigation that has led to the new charges “very stressful” and “very complex.”
“Any time you have a case such as this, it is shocking,” she said. “This doesn’t happen every day.”
But increasingly, experts say, when women have been accused of killing their babies, they have been charged with the more serious offence of murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, and not infanticide, which takes into account mental disturbances as a result of childbirth and has a five-year sentence.
Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, said applying the infanticide charge doesn’t devalue the life of the newborn, but it is appropriate in some cases.
“I find it shocking that the Crown takes the heaviest hand of the law when there can be other options,” Prof. Grant said.
Paul Brunnen, Ms. Borowiec’s lawyer, said he hopes to receive disclosure from the Crown by his client’s Nov. 29 court date. He said he is puzzled by the charges of murder when infanticide is available. “I’d like to know why that is too,” he said.
Staff Sgt. Campbell would only say that the charges were deemed appropriate by the Crown.
Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in the case of a mother who killed her two infants during bouts of postpartum depression, that when there is evidence of infanticide, the Crown cannot obtain a murder conviction. The Alberta Court of Appeal has also weighed in on the issue, overturning a murder conviction of a 19-year-old woman who gave birth secretly, strangled the infant and threw the body into a neighbouring yard. The court replaced the charge with infanticide.
So far, about 20 people have been interviewed in the Borowiec case. Investigators provided few details about how and when the babies died, but police allege that Ms. Borowiec gave birth in 2008 and then again in 2009 and that the babies died shortly after they were born. They said it is unlikely the bodies will ever be found.
According to a police application for a search warrant obtained by a local newspaper, Ms. Borowiec told police she miscarried in 2009 and then, in 2010, gave birth in her bathroom not realizing she was pregnant. She said she wrapped the baby in a towel, put it in a garbage bag and took it outside.
“Meredith thought the baby may be dead as she did not hear any crying nor [notice] movement, however according to Meredith, she did not check to see if he was alive nor try to assist the baby,” the document said.
She also told police, according to court documents, that she was “scared” and that she was “not fit to be a parent.”
While rare, cases of women killing multiple children are not unheard of.
In 2010, police in Calgary concluded that 27-year-old Harsimrat Kahlon died from complications after a secret home birth in October, 2009. The investigation revealed that since 2005, Ms. Kahlon had killed three babies and hid their bodies in containers, which were found squirrelled away in her basement apartment. Medical experts could not determine how the babies died.
Last August, also in Calgary, Stacey Joy Bourdeaux, 34, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the 2004 smothering death of her 10-month-old son, as well as attempted murder and failing to provide the necessities of life to her five-year-old son, who suffered serious brain damage as a result of smothering. But the baby’s death only came to light when the older boy was admitted to hospital last year.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/calgary-mother-charged-in-killing-of-two-infants/article2245686/

FILICIDE: Iowa: Michelle Kehoe appeal rejected

Josh O'Leary : July 13 2011

The Iowa Court of Appeals has upheld the 2009 conviction of Michelle Kehoe, the Coralville mother who was sentenced to life in prison after murdering her 2-year-old son and attempting to kill her then 7-year-old son.
In a ruling filed Wednesday, the appeals court struck down Kehoe's contention that her legal counsel, Waterloo-based public defenders Andrea Dryer and David Stout, was ineffective.
Jurors needed just two hours of deliberation at the end of a week-long trial in November 2009 to level guilty verdicts against Kehoe, now 38, for first-degree murder, attempted murder and child endangerment causing serious injury.
Kehoe had argued in her appeal that her counsel failed to challenge the constitutionality of Iowa's laws defining the insanity defense.
She said her counsel also was ineffective because it failed to request jury instruction on the consequences of a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity, and for failing to object to an element of the jury instruction on the attempted murder charge.
In the trial, Kehoe's defense did not contest Kehoe's actions against the children but had argued that her mental state at the time of the attacks prevented her from being held accountable. The jury ultimately rejected her insanity defense, and in addition to the life sentence for murder, gave her 25 years for attempted murder and 10 years for endangerment.
The appeals court, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision and other cases, ruled that Kehoe's due process rights were not violated by Iowa law, nor was there any violation of state and federal cruel or unusual punishment clauses. The court also found that Kehoe's counsel had no duty to object to jury instruction.
Therefore, Kehoe's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of Iowa's laws, nor was it at fault for not contesting aspects of jury instruction.
According to authorities, Kehoe took 2-year-old Seth and her other son, Sean, who was 7 at the time, to a remote area near Littleton in northeast Iowa in October 2008. Police and prosecutors said Kehoe placed duct tape over her sons' eyes, mouths and hands and cut their throats with a hunting knife she had bought a month earlier. She then cut her own throat. Seth died as a result of his injuries, but Sean survived.
Police said Kehoe wrote a note to make it appear as though they were abducted by a fictitious assailant, and she made similar claims to investigators before allegedly admitting to the crime.
A call left for Mark Smith, the state appellate defender representing Kehoe, was not returned Wednesday, nor was a message left at the public defender's office in Waterloo.

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110714/NEWS01/107140309/Kehoe-s-conviction-upheld