Alberta woman weeps at infanticide sentencing

Started by outdoors, Sep 08, 2011, 11:14 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

outdoors

Katrina Effert cried in an Edmonton courtroom as her lawyer described how her being charged and eventually convicted of killing her newborn son helped end her parents' marriage.

Effert was in court Thursday for a sentencing hearing for the killiing that happened more than six years ago.

"She is exhausted by this process at this stage," said Peter Royal. "I think she wants some finality."

Royal told the sentencing hearing that Effert's parents separated 18 months ago "in part because of the strain of these proceedings."

At that point, Effert and her mother began sobbing. Effert's father was not in court Thursday.

The Wetaskiwin woman was 19 years old on April 13, 2005 when she secretly gave birth in her parents' home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour's yard.

Court overturned murder conviction
Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found her guilty of murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.

In a rare move, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, replacing it with the lesser one of infanticide.

The appeal court said Effert should have been given the benefit of the doubt based on psychiatric evidence.

At the sentencing hearing Thursday Crown prosecutor John Laluk recommended a four-year sentence saying, "We have to remember this is a homicide."

The maximum sentence for infanticide is five years in prison.

Royal said he was "completely taken aback by the crown's position," and asked for a suspended sentence of two to three years to be served in the community.

"What this woman needs is support and understanding," he said. "She doesn't need to be trucked off to the penetentiary".

"This is a very fine young woman who went through a tragic event.

"She seeks understanding from the court, which I suspect will be forthcoming."

The judge reserved the decision for Friday afternoon.

The Crown is still waiting to hear if the Supreme Court of Canada will hear its appeal of the Alberta Court of Appeal's ruling.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/08/edmonton-effert-infanticide-sentencing.html

so.....she is crying about her parent's seperation that she herself caused,yet not a tear for the child?

neoteny

Quote
"This is a very fine young woman who went through a tragic event.


Sounds like it had nothing to do with her, she just had to wade through the killing of her newborn child.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

outdoors

 :angryfire:


No jail for Alberta woman convicted of infanticide


Katrina Effert, the Westakiwin, Alta. woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, will serve no time in jail.

Effert was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench judge.

The young woman was 19 years old on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents' home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour's yard.

She wept as Justice Joanne Veit reviewed the reasons for the suspended sentence.

Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.

In a rare move, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, replacing it with the lesser one of infanticide.

The appeal court said Effert should have been given the benefit of the doubt based on psychiatric evidence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

AnubisRox

Quote
Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.


Then why have an effin' jury at all?!!  :angryfire:

I think the jury made a mistake with letting Casey Anthony go! There's no talk of reversing that!
ell she turned me into a NEWT!! A newt?! Er..., well I got better.

neoteny


Quote
Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.


Then why have an effin' jury at all?!!  :angryfire:

I think the jury made a mistake with letting Casey Anthony go! There's no talk of reversing that!


Yes, this is a major point of difference between American & Canadian law (although both are based on common law): in the US, the jury verdict is final, in Canada the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal a jury verdict.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

outdoors


Quote
Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.


Then why have an effin' jury at all?!!  :angryfire:

I think the jury made a mistake with letting Casey Anthony go! There's no talk of reversing that!


Notice that the original judge who made that statement,presided over the appeal.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090623/edm_effert_verdict_090623/20090623/?hub=EdmontonHome

Russ2d



Quote
Two years ago, for the second time, a jury found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but last May the province's highest court decided the jury made a mistake.


Then why have an effin' jury at all?!!  :angryfire:

I think the jury made a mistake with letting Casey Anthony go! There's no talk of reversing that!


Yes, this is a major point of difference between American & Canadian law (although both are based on common law): in the US, the jury verdict is final, in Canada the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal a jury verdict.



No it's not final. Jury verdicts have been replaced by a judge's decision in the U.S.

The Biscuit Queen

How is infantcide any different than murder?? How is it less of a crime to kill a person because they are only a day old compared with years old?  I can't believe there is even a separate 'crime'! Seems to me there are plenty of reasons why one might kill an adult, but what did an infant ever do to deserve to be killed?

I am just appalled at this. When will these women be held accountable for their actions??  I had a baby at 19, and I wouldn't have dreamed of doing anything remotely like this! I am sick of the excuses. And as someone already said, why have a jury of some libtard judge can just overturn it??
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

outdoors

 She got more time for throwing the carcass over the fence than she did making the carcass in the first place.


Go Up