If she killed the foetus she'd be in no position to kill the child. If she killed the child then she can't have killed the foetus.
The charges make no sense to me.
Woman jailed for miscarriage
- Thread starter zooterkin
- Start date
If she killed the foetus she'd be in no position to kill the child. If she killed the child then she can't have killed the foetus.
The charges make no sense to me.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh for goodness sake, it's quite clear from the article that the pathologist didn't rely on the float test. He did all sorts of more modern tests as well.
Yes there are times when the lungs of a stillbirth will float, for various reasons. And yes it is possible for a portion of lung from a live birth to sink. That's why you do all the other tests he mentioned, if it's important to know. It doesn't mean you don't mention the float part at all!
He said the lungs looked full of air. That's very convincing. Sometimes it's hard to tell one way or another just by looking, but sometimes you open the chest and the lungs are just obviously inflated to the naked eye. That's what it seems was the case here.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Trials & Errors is thataway ====>
How come this thread isn't there already? What's the point of having a new sub-forum if we aren't using it?
There's several issues here, not just the apparent logical contradiction of conviction for mutually exclusive crimes.
If the child was born alive, and killed by the mother, that would normally be prosecuted, I think, but one would expect a certain amount of compassion since it usually indicates that the mother is at least under duress if not mentally ill.
The prosecution for an abortion seems unnecessarily vindictive, since the legislation against that was supposedly introduced to be used against those providing abortions, not the woman involved. The whole reasoning behind having those laws in the first place are a social issue, rather than a legal one, which is why I started the thread here.
If the child was born alive, and killed by the mother, that would normally be prosecuted, I think, but one would expect a certain amount of compassion since it usually indicates that the mother is at least under duress if not mentally ill.
The prosecution for an abortion seems unnecessarily vindictive, since the legislation against that was supposedly introduced to be used against those providing abortions, not the woman involved. The whole reasoning behind having those laws in the first place are a social issue, rather than a legal one, which is why I started the thread here.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
And depending on how they disposed of the body, littering.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As I understand it, it's the intent of the miscarriage that makes it a crime, not the death of the fetus. It suffices only that the jury was convinced that she intended to terminate the child, for them to find her guilty of the first crime. They found her guilty of the second crime when they were convinced that she allowed the child to die from neglect, after first criminally terminating the pregnancy through miscarriage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if her neglect of the child after it survived the miscarriage went a long way towards convincing the jury of her intent in causing the miscarriage.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
That actually makes a lot of sense. If the lungs were as inflated as the pathologist indicates, this could have been a kicking, bawling, live baby.
So she intended to terminate an advanced pregnancy, and took steps to do that. Crime 1. She actually gave birth to a live baby, and she killed that by extreme neglect. Crime 2.
I'm not at all sure about adding the penalties together, surely sentences should run concurrently in that case, but the concept of the two separate crimes is fairly clear.
(For example, she could have committed crime 1, but then tried to care for and save the baby when it was born alive. Or she could have had a spontaneous early labour, and then abandoned and killed the premature baby, crime 2. So it would be possible to commit either of these crimes separately. She managed to do both at once.)
So she intended to terminate an advanced pregnancy, and took steps to do that. Crime 1. She actually gave birth to a live baby, and she killed that by extreme neglect. Crime 2.
I'm not at all sure about adding the penalties together, surely sentences should run concurrently in that case, but the concept of the two separate crimes is fairly clear.
(For example, she could have committed crime 1, but then tried to care for and save the baby when it was born alive. Or she could have had a spontaneous early labour, and then abandoned and killed the premature baby, crime 2. So it would be possible to commit either of these crimes separately. She managed to do both at once.)
