Original Alear Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Six years ago, a 19-year-old Wetaskiwin teenager named Katrina Effert secretly gave birth in her parents' downstairs bathroom, then strangled her newborn son with her thong underwear and tossed his body over the fence into a neighbour's yard. http://www.calgaryhe...9878/story.htmlSo, what do you think? I think that the environment of acceptance is more dangerous than the acceptance itself. Beyond that, I'm kind of stunned and don't know what to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I daresay I agree with the ruling. In May of this year, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction, ruling that the jury’s verdict was “unreasonable.” It then replaced the murder conviction with the lesser charge of infanticide. Infanticide is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person, and babies are not persons. Up until they develop the cognitive capacities to express themselves through language, I see no reason why infants should be regarded as persons, and thus an infanticide charge is perfectly warranted instead of a homicide charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think the issue was with the sentencing, not with the ruling. Do we know anything regarding typical sentencing for infanticide in Canada? http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx 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. So it seems to me that she should have been sentenced to some amount of time in jail absolutely, not given a suspended sentence which means she might not serve any time in jail at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think the issue was with the sentencing, not with the ruling. Do we know anything regarding typical sentencing for infanticide in Canada? http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx So it seems to me that she should have been sentenced to some amount of time in jail absolutely, not given a suspended sentence which means she might not serve any time in jail at all. There are many reasons that a judge might suspend a sentence. I don't think we can comment on whether the sentence was appropriate without knowing more about the specific facts of the case. Regardless, if she's not a danger to others and as long as she gets the help she needs to overcome her issues and become a functioning member of society, I don't think that it's necessary to send her to prison. I don't think that the purpose of punishment should be to exact revenge, or to inflict suffering on those who "deserve" it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilmik11 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Ew. I don't care how developed a baby is, he or she is still a human that deserves to live. She should have served 2 or 3 years in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Ew. I don't care how developed a baby is, he or she is still a human that deserves to live. She should have served 2 or 3 years in prison. That's rather specific. Are you willing to show evidence for precisely what that exact sentence would have accomplished? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilmik11 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I don't know. Just so she could understand that what she did is wrong and that every life is valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) This isn't helping your preferred sentence be less arbitrary. Edited September 22, 2011 by Furetchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I don't know. Just so she could understand that what she did is wrong and that every life is valuable. Er... Cells are more or less killed by us everyday, and they are human cells. So i guess it does matter if how far developed the baby is really. Unless we are all criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zkirsche Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 There's a difference between skin cells and a baby though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I don't know. Just so she could understand that what she did is wrong and that every life is valuable. It's been six years. I don't believe we know whether or not she's come to understand that, but it certainly seems plausible. And furthermore, you've given no evidence as to why that sentence would be any better at accomplishing that goal than any alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Guys, you're all missing the point here. I don't care how undeveloped the baby happens to be, it's still a growing person, and that's not something that can be decided by some arbitrary growth in it's brain cell count. You're taking his/her chance at living life and perhaps even being a good, productive person in the world. Edited September 22, 2011 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 There's a difference between skin cells and a baby though. Well i'm fairly sure we also kill many other tyes of cell everyday. You know, thats the reason for cell division, but I know what you mean. However, sperm and egg cells (i forgot their actual name, i think they are not quite cells yet IIRC) are killed everyday (well egg cells less often) is that a crime? They are, after all, what makes a baby. A bunch of cells is not a baby. At the very least i don't think so. Its like i told my bio teacher on stem cells, a cluster of cells is not a baby. Even if they have the potential to become one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Its like i told my bio teacher on stem cells, a cluster of cells is not a baby. Even if they have the potential to become one. Alright then, let me ask you a question. Just think on death for a moment. Suppose you were just chilling out somewhere, when all of a sudden, a bunch of poisonous gas descended on you, killing you in a way where it's not over and done with in three seconds. Would you find it horrifying? If so, why? Don't argue semantics with me please, just answer the question if you don't mind. Edited September 22, 2011 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well i'm fairly sure we also kill many other tyes of cell everyday. You know, thats the reason for cell division, but I know what you mean. However, sperm and egg cells (i forgot their actual name, i think they are not quite cells yet IIRC) are killed everyday (well egg cells less often) is that a crime? They are, after all, what makes a baby. A bunch of cells is not a baby. At the very least i don't think so. Its like i told my bio teacher on stem cells, a cluster of cells is not a baby. Even if they have the potential to become one. Right. A simple bunch of cells does not a baby make. Which is why your tangent is silly and doesn't properly reply to earlier points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Alright then, let me ask you a question. Just think on death for a moment. Suppose you were just chilling out somewhere, when all of a sudden, a bunch of poisonous gas descended on you, killing you in a way where it's not over and done with in three seconds. Would you find it horrifying? If so, why? Don't argue semantics with me please, just answer the question if you don't mind. There is a difference i know what is happenening and i'm a completly developed body. I would find it horrifying to die, yes. And i don't think abortion should be done in later monthst and after the baby is born. However i'm arguing for really underdeveloped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Where does undeveloped come in in your mind? In my opinion, the baby should be counted as a person the instant it's capable of feeling emotions and/or pain on even the most basic level. How about you all? I'm just curious. Edited September 22, 2011 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Where does undeveloped come in in your mind? As in first trimester (perhaps not so much the 3 month). Unless you guys mean underdeveloped as just being born/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Ew. I don't care how developed a baby is, he or she is still a human that deserves to live. She should have served 2 or 3 years in prison. Don't worry--you have advocates backing you. They've been trying to outlaw male masturbation for decades now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 There is a difference i know what is happenening and i'm a completly developed body. I would find it horrifying to die, yes. And i don't think abortion should be done in later monthst and after the baby is born. However i'm arguing for really underdeveloped. You realize the child in this case was already born, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) You realize the child in this case was already born, correct? Yes but i was arguing against the guys talking about underdeveloped. Since its such a vague term i thought he could be speaking of early in the pregnancy, and disaproval of abortion so early isn't very uncommon really. Edited September 22, 2011 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shroudening Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Morality issues aside, I find it odd that she threw the baby over the fence. Since nobody would know that the baby existed, she could have done something to hide the evidence. I guess she panicked or something, but throwing a dead baby into the neighbor's yard is just as bad as putting it on their door step. Serves her right though. She could have been facing the consequences of her parents finding out she gave birth, or that on top of criminal charges. I'm ashamed to be a teenager... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Morality issues aside, I find it odd that she threw the baby over the fence. Since nobody would know that the baby existed, she could have done something to hide the evidence. Right because nobody noticed the belly, her parents didn't notice she was pregnant, her boyfriend didn't know, her friends didn't know, her neighbors didn't know, etc. Unless she was a hermit, and stayed in her room all the time, i doubt this is likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Don't worry--you have advocates backing you. They've been trying to outlaw male masturbation for decades now. Are you talking about the "religious" faction? Because nowhere in the Bible does it outlaw masturbation (or at least, not my version of Christianity. I've heard the Catholic Church has stuff like "masturbation is worse than sex with a whore", which I hope isn't true, but if it is, is that what you're referring to? I'm only assuming you're talking about Christianity since it's the most prolific religious group where I live). Edited September 22, 2011 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.