The price? 2nd degree murder.

[Odin]

Its stories like these that conflict me on punishments, morals, societial decline, etc, etc. I believe in the death penalty in some cases not all and this one I'm not so sure its the right way to go either. But 2nd degree murder?

N.D. mom admits killing, discarding baby

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dana Deegan hid her pregnancy from her family, including the father of her three children, for nine months. Then she gave birth to a healthy boy, fed him, dressed him, wrapped him in a blanket and left him to die.

Deegan, 34, of White Shield, admitted Monday that she left the child alone for two weeks immediately after he was born, then put his body in a suitcase and left it in a ditch on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.

Deegan tearfully pleaded guilty in federal court to a reduced charge of second-degree murder, acknowledging that she was under stress around the time of the birth. She had originally been charged with first-degree murder and false statements.

She is to be sentenced in February and could face as many as 18 years in prison.

The suitcase containing the body was found in November 1999 by a rancher repairing fences. Prosecutors said the baby was found in a one-piece sleeper and socks, wrapped in a blanket and towel, and in a plastic bag.

The child became known as "Baby Moses," and community members paid burial expenses. Authorities eventually identified his mother through DNA testing. Deegan volunteered a DNA sample to the FBI in 2004.

U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley said Monday that Deegan's plea helped bring justice for a baby whose life ended in starvation and dehydration.

The case is "absolutely gut-wrenching," said U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley.

Deegan told Judge Daniel Hovland, mostly through a series of yes-or-no-questions, that she had never seen a doctor during the pregnancy and that she gave birth to the boy Oct. 20, 1998.

She told Hovland that she gathered her older children — ages 1, 2 and 5 — and took them to her mother's home. She returned to her own home about two weeks later "by myself," she said.

Deegan said that neither she nor her children's father were employed at the time, and that they had no vehicle. The children's father used alcohol and was rarely around, she said. Her own father had cancer, she said.

Hovland asked Deegan whether her life had been "overwhelmed with stress," and she answered yes.

Deegan has been in her mother's custody. Defense attorney Bill Schmidt has declined to comment.

How do people come to this point? I know this is almost 10 years old, but this story bothered me. 1st because of the crime, 2nd because of the punishment. I thought 2nd degree murder was for a non premeditated killing ? (like a car accident).

What do you think should happen to this woman?

[FactionHeir]

I think its 1st degree and particualrly cruel as she left it to starve and die of thirst, rather than at least end it quickly (or the moral option of giving it to a hospital for adoption).

Claiming that she was "under stress" is what over 90% of murder-mothers do and get reduced sentences for.

[Odin]

I think its 1st degree and particualrly cruel as she left it to starve and die of thirst, rather than at least end it quickly (or the moral option of giving it to a hospital for adoption).

Thats my qualm with this too. Would it have been so hard to simply drop the babby off at a church, a mosque, a hospital, a police station?

Thats why I am baffled by the 2nd degree charge.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Over here infanticide is classed as manslaugher because women suffering from post-natal depression are not always of sound mind.

That's why. Clearly she wasn't thinking straight, or she is a total monster.

[Odin]

Over here infanticide is classed as manslaugher because women suffering from post-natal depression are not always of sound mind.

Whats the normal penalty where you are for manslaughter? Does it vary widely or is there a general term?

The struggle I have with this example is she just left the kid to die, thats cruel and that merits a harsher sentence IMHO.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Whats the normal penalty where you are for manslaughter? Does it vary widely or is there a general term?

The struggle I have with this example is she just left the kid to die, thats cruel and that merits a harsher sentence IMHO.

Clicky.

We rarely send people to prison for infanticide. People who do it aren't normally just stressed, they're suffering from post-natal depression, and are genuinely not in their right mind. As they don't pose a threat to society in general, I really don't see why you would want to put someone in gaol for this. They'd probably be made to undergo psychiatric treatment instead.

[ICantSpellDawg]

She's clearly a callous nut. I don't think it matters much which verdict they came to.

"Under Federal Court guidelines Deegan faces 8-10 years in prison

However U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland told Deegan he believes he'll probably sentence her to more time than what's suggested. A sentencing date has been set for Febuary 25th"

That's about when a number of murderers are released anyway.

[Ice]

1st Degree Murder

Life in Prison without the possibility of parole for a time period of no shorter than 30 years.

That would seem appropriate to me.

[Louis VI the Fat]

How do people come to this point?

I don't know. Maternal infanticide is so complex that you need a psychologist to answer that. Or perhaps a sociologist, or anthropologist. It is a widespread phenomenon.

A biologist would maybe say that this woman acted perfectly natural.

Deegan said that neither she nor her children's father were employed at the time, and that they had no vehicle. The children's father used alcohol and was rarely around, she said. Her own father had cancer, she said.

I blame this on a bitter, cruel and sexually frustrated society. I want this woman released. And those who've made contraception and abortion such a difficult choice put in gaol in her place.

[Odin]

I blame this on a bitter, cruel and sexually frustrated society. I want this woman released. And those who've made contraception and abortion such a difficult choice put in gaol in her place.

This is rubbish Louis and you know it. Its comforting to know your not above taking broad pot shots at entire societies Louis, must be nice to be in such a position.

[Vladimir]

This is rubbish Louis and you know it. Its comforting to know your not above taking broad pot shots at entire societies Louis, must be nice to be in such a position.

Maybe you're overreacting. The use of "gaol," the whip, and the hyperbole are a good sign.

[Odin]

Maybe you're overreacting. The use of "gaol," the whip, and the hyperbole are a good sign.

Of course I am, its part of my routine, I will be appearing all week.

However Louis is very clever, it wouldnt be the 1st time I've caught him cleverly disquising a point in some gratiatous attempt at humor.

Also he didnt mention that the woman chose to have another child with this guy, a 4th one. Personal liability for choices seems to be void in his rather clinical reply to the topic.

Perhaps he is a biologist?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Perhaps he is a biologist?

Heh. Oh I understand your anger here. Personally, I'd like to see life in prison OR even an eye for an eye, but the system in ND doesn't work that way on this issue.

The punishment is lenient in lieu of the crime, but that's what you get when you try to balance:

Real Justice - "Real Justice" being brought to bear on the innocent = The U.S. Judicial system. A watered down version of real justice with less satisfaction but fewer abuses of the innocent by the system.

The innocent victim doesn't apply in this defense, but that's the trade off

[Louis VI the Fat]

However Louis is very clever, it wouldnt be the 1st time I've caught him cleverly disquising a point

When dealing with me, never ascribe to cleverness what can be explained by laziness or downright incompetence to get a point across. I was making a provocation indeed, but underneath it all there was a point. Namely, that (maternal) infanticide out of psychological, social or financial despair is widespread, throughout the ages and different societies.

That font of scientific knowledge, Wiki, has this to say:

Infanticide is the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant. Often it is the mother who commits the act, but criminology recognises various forms of non-maternal child murder. In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible, whereas in most modern societies the practice is considered immoral and criminal. Nonetheless, it still takes place — in the Western world usually because of the parent's mental illness or violent behavior, and in some poor countries as a form of population control, sometimes with tacit societal acceptance. Female infanticide is more common than the killing of male babies.

In the UK, the Infanticide Act defines infanticide as a specific crime that can only be committed by the mother during the first twelve months of her baby's life. This article deals with the broader notion of infanticide explained above.

Just because maternal infanticide is widespread doesn't mean we have to morally accept it. It does mean that there is more to it than evilness or temporary insanity. In French law, which I won't bore you with, and UK law, and hence probably American law, there are seperate chapters for infanticide. Law has long thought it unjust to have a murder sentence for mothers committing infanticide:

'The Infanticide Act, 1922 effectively abolished the death penalty for a woman who deliberately killed her new born child while the balance of her mind was disturbed as a result of giving birth, by providing a partial defence to murder. The sentence that applies (as in other partial defences to murder) is the same as that for manslaughter.'

As for culpability, people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. The mother in this case. This was a cruel infant murder. Starving a helpless infant to death is shocking, sure. But I do think this woman needs a fair treatment, taking the psychology of maternal infanticide in account. I understand that there is more to maternal infanticide than first meets the eye, but I find it difficult to gain an understanding of it. I do feel that psychological insights strongly need to be taken into account in her verdict.

So much for the psychological despair. As for my statement that not this mother, but the rest of society should be put to gaol, that rests on the social and financial despair and goes, somewhat:

Infanticide and abandonment are normal instruments for animals. And for many human societies. Including the West until not that long ago. However, since we emphasise individual rights to live, it is no longer tolerated. Hence, other means should be available to prevent it. Contraception, including removing any taboo or unavailability of it. Abortion, including removing the taboo and unavailability of it. And adoption, including easy availability and anonimity. These instruments are witheld from women, often women in a despairing situation. Modern ethics deny women the choice to be a mother or not. Not only negativly as above, but also positively, by economic dependency of women, by myths of maternal instincts, by social pressure, or simply denial of education to women. The West has progressed beyond old-fashioned means of birth control. (Including high infant mortality rate). Yet, modern instruments and ethics are denied to women.

From a feminist point of view, I think it is unfair to put the blame on women alone. Why did she feel the need to hide her pregnancy from an abusive, alcoholic husband? Why does hubby get off so easily? When will women finally be empowered enough to not think twice about leaving abusive men?
From a sociological point of view, the blame should not simply rest on these women alone. If you put people in an impossible position, then don't be too eager too judge them. This was the point were my provocative remark about putting some other people in gaol too creeped in. And no, I don't really think everybody else is to blame, but I feel that I, personally, would not want to judge too harshly an act which I myself maybe would have committed too.

If this all sounds ridiculous, or liberal nonsense taken too far, read what an unsuspecting, conservative source, the Catholic Encyclopaedia, has to say about infanticide below. I often prefer protestantism over catholicism. But one thing catholicism does better. And that is that it focuses less on an absolutist moral code, and has more empathy, more leniency for real problems of real people.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Infanticide
Child-murder; the killing of an infant before or after birth. According to the French Criminal Code the word is limited to the murder of the new-born infant. In English it has been used for the deprivation of life from the moment of conception up to the age of two or three years. Except under Hebrew and Christian law, the killing of very young children by their parents has almost invariably been either legally permitted or at least practised with impunity. Economic reasons more than any others had led to the killing of infants before or after birth and have continued to exert an unfortunate influence even down to our own day. In Oriental countries certain poetic and religious traditions were appealed to in justification of the custom of killing infants, but as a rule the economic basis for it is clear. In many countries it was the custom to get rid of many of the female infants because they were unproductive, and generally expensive, members of the family. Sometimes usage required large dowries to be given with them. In India infanticide continued to be practised until far into the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the efforts of the British Government to put an end to it. In Greece and Rome, even at the height of their culture, the custom of exposing infants obtained, and in China and Japan delicate or deformed children were abandoned, or even healthy females, where there were male children in the family. Missionaries have done much to break up the custom and many children have been saved by them in the last few generations to be reared in the light of Christianity. Christianity first opposed a formal and effectual barrier to infanticide. Immediately after the Emperor Constantine's conversion he enacted two laws (about A. D. 320) directed against child-murder which are still found in the Theodosian Code (lib. XI, tit. xxvii). The first, to remove temptation, provided funds out of the imperial treasury for parents over-burdened with children; the second accorded all the rights of property of exposed infants to those who had had the charity to save and nurture them.

In modern times even in Christian countries two causes have led to post-natal infanticide: one, the disgrace attendant upon illegitimacy; the other, an economic reason. Illegitimate children were sacrificed partly for the concealment of shame, but often to escape the burden of the child's support. The crime occurs most frequently where illegitimacy is most frequent and, according to statistics, is least common in Ireland. In countries where children are readily received without question into institutions, infanticide is rare. In France the law forbids inquiry into paternity, and arrangements are made for the state care of the children. In Russia even more liberal provision is made for the state care of any child whose parents cannot or will not care for it. The question of child-murder by mothers has always been a difficult legal problem. Under a statute of James I of England, the mother had to account for the death of her infant or be held responsible for it. In 1803 trials for infanticide were placed under the ordinary rules of evidence. The presumption now is that every new-born child found dead was born dead unless the contrary is proved. This rule of English law holds in the United States. Infanticide has been quite common in European countries during the nineteenth century for two sordid reasons: one was the neglect of infants in the process of what was known as baby-farming, the other was the desire to obtain insurance money. This abuse has been regulated in various ways, but baby-farming and child-insurance still seriously increase the death-rate among infants.