Baby killer walks free

[Mr.Mister]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/09/09/baby...na-effert-walks

 

 

A judge ruled Friday that Wetaskiwin baby killer Katrina Effert should be handed a three-year suspended sentence and put on probation on her conviction for infanticide.

 

However, the sentence was put on hold until next week after a technicality arose over a 90-day jail term earlier given to Effert, 25, on her additional conviction of unlawfully disposing of a body for tossing the strangled new-born boy over a back fence into a neighbour’s yard.

 

Queen’s Bench Justice Joanne Veit rejected the Crown’s call for a four-year prison term – which she described as “essentially” seeking the maximum five-year punishment when taking into account the time Effert has already spent behind bars and under strict bail conditions.

 

Based on the fact infanticide has not been struck from the Criminal Code and it has no minimum penalty, Veit said she feels Canadians “understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.

 

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” said Veit.

 

The judge said the crime Effert committed is “very grave,” but found there were no aggravating factors in the case because the fact she intentionally killed her own son is part of the actual element of the offence.

 

The Crown had argued that it was aggravating that Effert had initially lied to police about what happened and tried to blame the infant’s father, but Veit disagreed.

 

“I am of the view that those actions, along with the action of throwing her baby’s body over her back fence, are painful evidence of Ms. Effert’s irrational behaviour as a result of her disturbed mind,” said Veit.

 

She also ruled that, due to the finding Effert was suffering from a disturbance of her mind” at the time, she has a “diminished moral blameworthiness” compared with others who kill young children under their responsibility.

 

Veit said there are many mitigating factors, including Effert’s youth, her lack of a prior criminal record, her remorse and her pro-social lifestyle since the killing.

 

As well, the judge ruled Effert has already served the equivalent of seven and a half months in custody.

 

“In summary, this is a classic infanticide case – the killing of a newborn or a justborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported,” said Veit.

 

Regarding the conditions of the probation that goes along with a suspended sentence, Veit agreed Effert should take counselling as directed, inform her supervisor if she is pregnant and perform 100 hours of community service.

 

But, the sentence was not imposed and the case was put over to Wednesday after a legal technicality came up about Effert’s 90-day sentence for interfering with a body.

 

Defence lawyer Peter Royal had asked Veit to let Effert serve the remaining 16 days on weekends, however she agreed with the Crown that she had no jurisdiction because the sentence was imposed at the time Effert was convicted of second-degree murder for the slaying.

 

Royal implored Veit to use her discretion as a superior court judge, saying it was an “injustice” based on the infanticide ruling, but she replied her hands were tied.

 

The matter was then adjourned so Royal could attempt to have the matter put before the Alberta Court of Appeal.

 

On Thursday, a sobbing Effert stood in court and told the judge she accepts responsibility for the April 2005 killing.

 

“I just want to say that I am sorry for everything that happened, especially to my family,” she said. “I wish I could take it all back, but I can’t.”

 

Effert had been sentenced to life in prison in 2009 after earlier being convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for strangling her newborn son, later named Rodney, with a pair of orange thong underwear and tossing his body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard in April 2005.

 

However, the Court of Appeal of Alberta quashed the conviction in May, ruling the jury’s verdict was “unreasonable,” and substituted a conviction of infanticide.

 

It was the second time Effert was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury in the newborn’s death. In 2006, a Wetaskiwin jury found her guilty, but a new trial was ordered because jurors were given flawed instructions.

 

At trial, court heard that after denying it was her baby and lying to police several times, Effert tearfully confessed that she “panicked” when the baby boy began crying and covered his face with a towel and strangled him with her underwear.

 

A few hours later she carried the baby into the back yard and tossed him over a fence into a neighbour’s yard.

 

A forensic psychiatrist testified Effert was suffering from an “imbalance of the mind” at the time while a forensic psychologist told jurors she had an acute stress disorder.

 

It dosnt matter if its a 6 month old child or a 90 year old, you should still serve a longer sentence. I don't believe in execution, but this is just way to lax. And we grieve for the mother? What the f*ck is this bullsh*t. Stop pulling out the mental disorder card. Guess what? All murderers are f*cked in the head in some way

 

I guess its ok to kill your baby if you dont want him. This isnt abortion, its murder

 

Thoughts?

 

[lil weasel]

It has been such a long time since the first person was ‘hired’ by the people to be law enforcement that most of us have forgotten that Government are the hired help. We’ve given Government the Ok to do as they please for so long that the Legislature makes its own laws with only lip service to what the populace want or need. The courts make their own laws pushing aside what the Legislature intended. The law Enforcement just want power. While the three of them are supposed to work for the good of the people they actually work for garnering more power for themselves.

It should be noted that most of these types of deaths by ‘murder’ are one of situations. Even so, I am a proponent of the Guillotine as a way of ensuring no recidivism. I don’t believe that ‘insanity’ or its ilk are an excuse for warm storage of perpatrators.

Edited September 10, 2011 by lil weasel

[sivispacem]

It has been such a long time since the first person was ‘hired’ by the people to be law enforcement that most of us have forgotten that Government are the hired help. We’ve given Government the Ok to do as they please for so long that the Legislature makes its own laws with only lip service to what the populace want or need. The courts make their own laws pushing aside what the Legislature intended. The law Enforcement just want power. While the three of them are supposed to work for the good of the people they actually work for garnering more power for themselves.

Attacking law enforcement for what is quite evidently the responsibility of the judiciary seems very odd to me. Nothing you've said appears to have any relationship with the original post, it's just another paint-by-numbers anti-establishment diatribe. From the view of an outsider, you have absolutely no idea how tedious these kinds of comments become.

[lil weasel]

the point is law enforcement detaines the innocent until the court finds the person guilty according to the rules as set by the legislature.

The legislature is supposed to write the laws to protect the population.

So, if the jury (of the people) find someone guilty it's the duty of the court to decide what the legislature ment in the law for punisment. When the legislature makes it vague the court has its field day.

If the people don't like what the courts/legislature/law enforcement do then the people have no business to complain. Use the vote (if your allowed to hve one) to correct the situation. Don't sit around crying about a 'miscarriage' of justice.

Recall the judge if it's allowed.

Change the legislature at the next election.

You're stuck with the cops (civil service).

[Icarus]

I remember when this case first came up in 2009. No one really said much when she got convicted, but I do remember sh*t did hit the fan when the Alberta Court of Appeal quashed her convictions - many people in the city were certainly pissed off, saying she pretty much got away with murder.

 

I understand sometimes a mother might not want a child and might not even want to have an abortion, but that's why adoption agencies exist for that purpose. As for the mother's condition, if she did have a mental illness at the time, then the courts have no choice but to take that into consideration during the trial and sentencing (it's why the guy who beheaded that kid on the Greyhound bus in Manitoba back in 2008 is in a psychiatric hospital and not a federal prison). Furthermore, this issue may have come up previously in the Alberta Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada and hence, a precedent may have been set; since the courts in Canada abide by the principle of stare decisis, lower courts would have no choice but to follow the precedent already set.

 

[EDIT] Grammar fixes.

 

[EDIT 2] A couple of links:

 

News story of the overturn

 

Decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal

Edited September 10, 2011 by Icarus

[sivispacem]

 

the point is law enforcement detaines the innocent until the court finds the person guilty according to the rules as set by the legislature.

The legislature is supposed to write the laws to protect the population.

So, if the jury (of the people) find someone guilty it's the duty of the court to decide what the legislature ment in the law for punisment. When the legislature makes it vague the court has its field day.

If the people don't like what the courts/legislature/law enforcement do then the people have no business to complain. Use the vote (if your allowed to hve one) to correct the situation. Don't sit around crying about a 'miscarriage' of justice.

Recall the judge if it's allowed.

Change the legislature at the next election.

You're stuck with the cops (civil service).

The fundamental issue if your misinterpretation of the role of law enforcement. It's role is twofold- to enforce legislation passed by the government, and to act as one arm of its legitimate use of force. When it all boils down to it, that's all they're tasked with doing. Changing the government shouldn't have an impact on the basic principals or method of operation of law enforcement. Like any good bureaucracy, their role does not change when the government does. You don't sack the entire army and select a new one when the administration changes- not in the Western world, anyway. The police are not that different to armed forces in their application or basic role- the only difference is that one looks at external threats, and one looks at internal ones.

 

People have every right to complain if they have legitimate grounds for doing so. Complaining about the police performing their defined role, or complaining that the police hold responsibility for the actions of the legislature or judiciary does not represent legitimate grounds.