A dangerous precedence

George · Post by **George** » Mon 22 November 2004 4:27 pm

There has been a very sad, absolutely awful case in the news in New Zealand the last week. A father smothered and killed is infant child who had been born with the brain of a 12 week foetus. He confessed what he did and it went to trial. He was found not guilty of murder, not guilty of manslaughter.

As can be imagined it has created a lot of controversy and sets a dangerous precedence in that some people's lives are not seen as being as worthwhile as others. What does that bode for others born severely handicapped or for extremely ill elderly? Do their lives hold no value?

While a prison sentance would be out of order, surely he should have been found guilty, as he himself admitted, and he was contrite and remorseful about the whole situation, and he will live with the knowledge that he took the life of his child for his whole life. It must be such a nightmare for parents to discover their child has such a profound handicap, but how far away from we from a society that sanctions murder of those who are less than perfect. Although there has been quite a bit of surprise over the verdict, there has been a significant amount of support for the verdict. All I can say is I am glad I wasn't on the jury - it must have been awful for everyone involved in the whole case, family, police, court and jurors.

Schultz · Post by **Schultz** » Tue 23 November 2004 10:11 am

I personally believe that most of these successful attempts, however, are bogus. Is this tactic attempted where you live? If that father lived here, he would stand a good chance of going free because of "psychological stress."

Actually, the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense is not as nearly successful as we have been led to believe. Juries don't buy it anymore. It's always the very last resort and no good lawyer uses it because it not only is a shot in the dark verdict-wise, but it also tarnishes the reputation of the attorney. For every case that is trumpted in the media aobut someone getting off scott-free due to insanity, there are literally hundreds that have failed to do so. It is most rarely used as a defense these days and when it does, it almost always fails.

George · Post by **George** » Tue 23 November 2004 2:25 pm

I think the not guilty by insanity is used now and then, although in this case it wasn't used or attempted, as the poor man admitted everything and had a sympathetic jury. I think probably they were all wondering 'What would I do in that situation?" and thinking that his whole life will be suffering, and thus found him not guilty, and rather than risk a jail sentance with a guilty verdict found him not guilty.

Yes, the only thing one can do in a situation like this is pray - for the baby, the father and his whole family. I personally think the jury was wrong, but I realise how hard it would be to put emotion aside in such a case like this.