No jail for B.C. mom who drowned baby
SURREY, B.C. -- A mother who pleaded guilty to drowning her baby boy six years ago won't serve jail time.
Jaswinder Kang was handed a two-years-less-a-day conditional sentence and three years probation in Surrey provincial court Thursday.
I guess women now have the right to kill their kids and then claim being "disturbed". If this was a father who had drowned his child, you can bet money that he would be serving time. Why the double standard?
The four-month-old died weeks later at B.C. Children's Hospital in Vancouver.
Kang originally told police the baby was snatched away by a panhandler, and police launched an exhaustive investigation trying to find out how he wound up dead in the pool.
Throw your 4 month old baby into the pool and then lie your head off. If that doesn't work....
Defence attorney Russ Chamberlain said the accused herself still doesn't know how "joy turned into such disaster." Chamberlain cited a psychological report that said she was "disturbed and depressed" at the time.
The judge also quoted from the report during sentencing, noting it said Kang had "not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to her child."
Why didn't this disturbed woman go ask for help from the SOWS (Status of Women)?
Women want to be considered equal until it comes to killing their child, then they pull the "disturbed and distressed" and "postpartum" scam. Fine, maybe she was disturbed, distressed and suffering from whatever, that does not mean she should get off scott free! Anyone who murders someone, is disturbed, distressed and suffering from something. No normal person kills someone, especially a baby. That does not excuse them from what they have done.
Feminists yap about my body, my choice, well sorry girls, we aren't equal because of sorry excuses like this woman, using the fact that she is a female to get out of any punishment for killing her own baby. Lord help us if she gets pregnant again!
You want to be equal, work for it! I am sick and tired of women playing the "poor me" game when it suits them, especially during a divorce. I am sick of the courts in general, but especially when it comes to woman criminals, and that's what this woman is, a killer, she even admitted it.
12 comments:
You're 100% right and I think a majority of Canadians would agree with you . . . And it wont make any difference whatsoever. The whiny, professional victim minority will outshrill you into silence.
And Dion now wants to "play politics" with the abortion debate!! This "woman" killed an innocent child - her choice - but months earlier it would have been - her choice - to abort and that would have been ok with Dion.
A private members bill to protect the fetus in an attack on a mother will go down to defeat because it might affect - her choice!!
What you do not seem to understand is that, for centuries, our law has distinguished between "intentional" crimes. It has also been long established (again, for centuries) that people can be found to have "diminished responsibility" if they are suffering from an illness of the mind.
If you want to change that, you will be overturning centuries of established jurisprudence which Canada adopted when we adopted the British common law system of justice.
She is not "claiming" she was disturbed, she WAS disturbed. It is a medical disorder associated with post-partum depression.
Unless you have some medical training that disputes the opinion of the medical professionals...
Well Gayle you are such a lucky "person" that your "mother" was of "sound mind" that you are able to discuss such an important issue. Bless your mother that she didn't exercise her choice, it's just that easy ya know, legal history aside!!
Gayle, killing anyone can then be classified as "diminished responsibility" according to you. Postpartum depression is an easy excuse that women are using to justify their actions. It's an easy way to escape any punishment for your crime.
If she was "disturbed" as you state, why wasn't she put in an institution? Oh, right, she only had one baby to kill so she was no danger to anyone anymore.
Your argument is the BS I'm talking about. If she was depressed, hand the baby over to a relative and go get help! But because the baby would have been a burden for her whole life, she killed it, plain and simple.
"Gayle, killing anyone can then be classified as "diminished responsibility" according to you."
I know this may be difficult for you, but do try to respond to what I actually say rather than pretend I said something that makes it easier for you to argue against.
Of course, I never said that killing "anyone" can be classified as "diminished responsibility". What I said was that the law has recognized "diminished responsibility" for centuries. I also noted that some people (they are called "doctors"), go to university for many, many years to educate themselves on various mental disorders.
I am sure you think you know more than they do, but, quite frankly, I rather doubt it.
But if you do decide to go to medical school and get a degree, I am sure you will be in a position to offer an educated opinion on the subject.
See you in 7 years (or so).
Gayle - it isn't the fact that she was "disturbed" that bothers me - no one is denying that she may have been suffering from post partum depression.
It is the fact that she got off with a slap on the wrist under so called "dimished responsibility".
I do not deny that post partum depression is real; nor do I deny that for some women, it can really hit hard.
I just do not agree that taking a life - no matter what the reason - should result in the killer not having to take some sort of responsibility.
That is fine AG, but as I said above, the law has recognized "diminished responsibility" for centuries. It results in a lesser conviction, a lesser sentence, or an outright acquittal depending on the circumstances. This case is nothing new, and it has nothing to do with the fact the accused is a woman (but for the fact that post partum depression only afflicts women). Many male accused also have their sentences/convictions reduced due to diminished capacity.
The sentence also reflects the fact that she has to live with what she has done for the rest of her life. Imagine being in a disturbed mental state, and them coming out of it and realizing that you killed your own child. (Don't say that you would never do such a thing - the reason mental illness is recognized as a defence is because it results in people doing things they would never ordinarily do, so you have to imagine that your mental state resulted in your doing the unthinkable). Just imagine the guilt you would feel. There is no sentence a court could order that would alleviate that guilt.
Court heard that the baby had nearly died in a sudden infant death syndrome-like incident before the drowning. The baby turned blue, suffered brain damage and was not developing normally, court heard.
So, the baby was already in trouble once, and if the mother was so disturbed, why did she pretend someone had abducted the baby? She took no responsibility for her actions and was smart enough to try and lie her way out of punishment. The courts let her off without any punishment at all.
Gayle, your comment about my not being a doctor shows your ignorant and judgmental attitude. How do you know I am not a doctor? Also, your opinions are not the only ones that are correct, contrary to your inflated opinion of yourself.
Funny how we have a sudden death-like incident and postpartum all in one case. Smells to me, and that's my OPINION!
Hunter - your entire premise is that she was not disturbed. I suppose you could be correct, though you never met her, nor have you assessed her (and I think it is quite obvious you are not a doctor). Unfortunately for you, the FACT is that she WAS assessed, by a qualified professional, who gave an expert opinion that contradicts yours.
"Defence attorney Russ Chamberlain said the accused herself still doesn't know how "joy turned into such disaster." Chamberlain cited a psychological report that said she was "disturbed and depressed" at the time."
So, yes, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just pointing out that your opinion happens to be baseless.
Gayle, the baby was murdered, a 4 month old baby, deliberately left to drown. Anyone who could do that has to be "disturbed", but that does not mean that they should be let off scott free!
If they are that "disturbed" they should be put into a program that will give them help, this did not occur. The judge could have put her into an institution, but didn't because she was not at risk of harming anyone else. In other words, she only had one baby to kill. So, far!
Do you know what the terms of her probation are? What makes you think she will not be compelled to participate in treatment? I should think it highly likely that treatment would be a term of her probation order.
The only institution the judge could have placed her in is jail (there is no provisionin the criminal code to sentence someone to a hospital unless they are not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial).
Post a Comment