Children may not be able to vote, but that doesn't mean our legislatures should forget about them.
WHAT IS JUSTICE'S LAW?
Justice's Law is a bill before the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates requesting stricter penalties for those convicted of Child Abuse Resulting in Death. This bill will increase the maximum penalty for murder of a child from 30 years to LIFE IN PRISON.
Unfortunately, in Maryland, taking the life of a child is viewed differently than taking the life of an adult, and the MAXIMUM amount of time a convicted child killer can serve is 30 years. Additionally, inmates are only required to serve 50% of their sentence before they are eligible for parole, putting them back on the streets in 15 years or less.
Most of those convicted of this crime are young, usually in their early 20's. Without Justice's Law, these murderers could be walking the streets in their 30's.
Not only does this pose a serious threat to society, it is a gross failure of justice. While there is not a sentence that is adequately proportionate to this type of crime, increasing the maximum penalty to LIFE IN PRISON, as opposed to 30 years, is a step we need to take for the safety of Maryland's children.
"HOMICIDE IS THE CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG CHILDREN SEVEN TIMES MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MENINGITIS AND TWENTY TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN AIDS." -1999 Northwestern Law Journal of Law and Criminology
Unfortunately, in Maryland, taking the life of a child is viewed differently than taking the life of an adult, and the MAXIMUM amount of time a convicted child killer can serve is 30 years. Additionally, inmates are only required to serve 50% of their sentence before they are eligible for parole, putting them back on the streets in 15 years or less.
Most of those convicted of this crime are young, usually in their early 20's. Without Justice's Law, these murderers could be walking the streets in their 30's.
Not only does this pose a serious threat to society, it is a gross failure of justice. While there is not a sentence that is adequately proportionate to this type of crime, increasing the maximum penalty to LIFE IN PRISON, as opposed to 30 years, is a step we need to take for the safety of Maryland's children.
"HOMICIDE IS THE CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG CHILDREN SEVEN TIMES MORE FREQUENTLY THAN MENINGITIS AND TWENTY TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN AIDS." -1999 Northwestern Law Journal of Law and Criminology
WHY AREN'T CHILD ABUSERS CONVICTED OF 1ST OR 2ND DEGREE MURDER WHEN THEY KILL A CHILD?
A [jury] must be convinced that a defendant acted with a particular mental state to convict the person of murder, and many juries (and judges) are reluctant to make such a finding when a child is killed at the hands of a caretaker. This is so for several reasons:
First, motive is often unclear when a caretaker kills a child. Unlike a fight between adults that escalates to a killing, there may be little evidence as to why a caretaker would kill a child. Even when a motive exists, the reason for the killing may be so trivial as to be nearly incomprehensible to most people. Moreover, it is often difficult for the finder of fact to determine whether the fatal act resulted from a one-time response from frustration and anger, or if it was the result of hatred and genuine ill-will toward the child.
Another difficulty with prosecuting child homicide is the frequent lack of external injuries. A gunshot or knife wound is readily understandable; evidence of a cerebral hematoma [brain injury] in an otherwise healthy child is not. Child homicide often is committed by a caretaker who is alone with a child for an extended period of time, almost never involves the type of deadly weapons commonly associated with homicides of adults and older children, and results in injuries requiring careful observation by a medical examiner.
[Children also tend to lack signs of "defensive wounds" or forensic signs of a struggle; wounds that result from fighting back-which is often relied upon heavily by prosecutors to prove the intent or state of mind of the defendant]
Finally, many people simply cannot believe adults kill children in their care, leading some jurors and judges to resist verdicts that place a high degree of culpability on a caretaker. Additionally, even prosecutors, child protective service workers, police, and medical professionals may fail to recognize or pursue cases of child homicide.
Whether a child dies with many or few external signs of injury, a jury will rightly ask several questions. Can the death be explained as an accident? Was the caretaker merely negligent or was she or he provoked to commit a violent act in the heat of passion? Was the caretaker so reckless as to manifest an extreme indifference to human life? Did the caretaker know the child would die as a result of the conduct? Or, perhaps, did the caretaker intend to kill the child? These are difficult questions for a [jury] to answer, with the result often being a relatively low level of punishment or no punishment at all for a caretaker who kills a child with his or her hands.-1999 Northwestern School of Law Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
First, motive is often unclear when a caretaker kills a child. Unlike a fight between adults that escalates to a killing, there may be little evidence as to why a caretaker would kill a child. Even when a motive exists, the reason for the killing may be so trivial as to be nearly incomprehensible to most people. Moreover, it is often difficult for the finder of fact to determine whether the fatal act resulted from a one-time response from frustration and anger, or if it was the result of hatred and genuine ill-will toward the child.
Another difficulty with prosecuting child homicide is the frequent lack of external injuries. A gunshot or knife wound is readily understandable; evidence of a cerebral hematoma [brain injury] in an otherwise healthy child is not. Child homicide often is committed by a caretaker who is alone with a child for an extended period of time, almost never involves the type of deadly weapons commonly associated with homicides of adults and older children, and results in injuries requiring careful observation by a medical examiner.
[Children also tend to lack signs of "defensive wounds" or forensic signs of a struggle; wounds that result from fighting back-which is often relied upon heavily by prosecutors to prove the intent or state of mind of the defendant]
Finally, many people simply cannot believe adults kill children in their care, leading some jurors and judges to resist verdicts that place a high degree of culpability on a caretaker. Additionally, even prosecutors, child protective service workers, police, and medical professionals may fail to recognize or pursue cases of child homicide.
Whether a child dies with many or few external signs of injury, a jury will rightly ask several questions. Can the death be explained as an accident? Was the caretaker merely negligent or was she or he provoked to commit a violent act in the heat of passion? Was the caretaker so reckless as to manifest an extreme indifference to human life? Did the caretaker know the child would die as a result of the conduct? Or, perhaps, did the caretaker intend to kill the child? These are difficult questions for a [jury] to answer, with the result often being a relatively low level of punishment or no punishment at all for a caretaker who kills a child with his or her hands.-
"Prosecutors all over the country will tell you that the easiest murder to get away with is the killing of an infant or small child by a parent or caretaker."
-J. Tom Morgan, U.S. Dep't. of Health and Human Services
Click here to view Justice's Law Newsletter! | |
File Size: | 409 kb |
File Type: |