David Warren Lloyd -- editorial column
  David Warren Lloyd's webfolio  
  • editorial column
• SEE Magazine
• MA thesis
• IASPM paper
• resume & publications
 • contact
• home 		Like it is

2 October, 2006
Young, scared, and condemned

A Wetaskiwin jury recently convicted a 20-year-old woman of second-degree murder because she killed her newborn son. Someone I talked to about the case said "Good, she deserves it."

But what I've read about the case indicates otherwise. The jury failed to consider precedent, one of the most important factors in verdicts and sentences. After all, if one person receives a certain sentence for a certain crime, then a different person commits the same crime in the same circumstances, it isn't fair to give the second person a different verdict or sentence. In discussions of racism, sexism, homophobia, and all other violations of human rights, doing so is called a "double standard".

Yet, the jury applied a double standard to Katrina Effert. Dr. Vijay Singh, who heads the Alberta Hospital's forensic psychiatry unit and who testified at the trial, said it's virtually unheard of for mothers to go to prison for killing their own newborn children. Effert received a life sentence. A University of Winnipeg criminologist said that this verdict has no precedent.

A justice system must be rational, consistent, and fair. Otherwise, it issues no justice. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, Effert committed infanticide, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Sadly, though, this jury ignored the Criminal Code.

Dr. Singh also said that, while Effert should be held criminally responsible, she should not go to prison, as her actions were due to the trauma of a pregnancy endured in secret. He and a forensic psychiatrist agreed as expert witnesses that Effert's is a classic case of infanticide. They said her mind was disturbed because of the hormonal turmoil of birth and lactation and the shame of an unwanted, secret pregnancy.

Did anyone stumble on the word "unwanted" just now? How does a woman get pregnant involuntarily? I've read that Effert had very low self-esteem and lower-than-average IQ. Her boyfriend controlled and hit her. She was not using birth control because she wanted to remain abstinent, but he pressured her into sex. When she became pregnant, he dumped her and refused to accept responsibility for the baby. His friends threatened her against telling anyone.

She's very religious and refused to terminate the pregnancy. But the reality of the newborn combined with the pain and hormonal hurricane of birth pushed her into blind panic. She feared severe reprisal from her parents and community. She had no idea what to do, because she saw absolutely no support in her environment.

Effert was a mess. But who made the mess? Yes, she should have refused sex. But at what price? Physical violence? To me, a man who threatens violence and demands sex is a rapist. Even if the threat and demand come in different contexts, the connection is implied.

How would you feel if your daughter was raped, was too afraid of you tell you she was pregnant, killed the unwanted child out of sheer terror, then was condemned to a life in prison? How completely shattered must this person feel, believing that absolutely nobody supports her, not the Canadian justice system and not even her boyfriend? Where's the justice for the others directly responsible for putting her in this mess?

This verdict condones abusing women. It condones misogyny and deadbeat fathers. It ignores legal precedent, expert testimony, and scientific fact. It shows the tragedy of when people decide someone's fate using shocked hearts and not informed minds.

What kind of community condemns a young mother and absolves a young father of the same crime?

I'm a proud Albertan, except when it comes to this case.

[top]


 




Content and design of this web site ©2004 David Warren Lloyd