Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a night terror. In real life she successfully defended herself from a charge of murder using the defence of automatism - that is, not having control over her own body, which therefore meant not that she did not have the mens rea (guilty mind) but rather that she could not have committed the actus reus (guilty act) due to the lack of control.
Here we diverge from reality. Assume that the case takes place in the modern day, not 1858.
The legal system has been ordered to prosecute her for the murder of her baby. In scenario one you are sitting on the jury, and you are such an illustrious person that the jury will vote whichever way you do. The defence has argued as above, in accordance with reality. The prosecution has argued that Griggs, who has a long history of night terrors and episodes of automatism, put herself in a position to lose control - much like a driver asleep at the wheel is still at fault not for crashing the car (which, because he was asleep, he obviously could not control) but rather for driving in a condition where he would fall asleep and lose control. The prosecution argues Griggs is guilty of murder.
What say you?
In scenario 2, you are now the judge. The jury has returned a guilty verdict and Mrs Griggs will now be sentenced by you. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. You have the option of imposing a fine of any number of penalty units (with 1 penalty unit being 1 day's wage for a median worker), community service of so many hours, or a custodial sentence (jail time) with the possibility of some or all being suspended. Bear in mind the goals of sentencing: deterrence, security of the community, denunciation of crime, punishment, and rehabilitation. Bear in mind also that your role as the sentencing judge is not to determine guilt but to impose appropriate sentences for whom the jury finds guilty.
Guilty verdict of what? Manslaughter? Not enough information to make an informed legal sentence. If Manslaughter than mandatory rehabilitation and therapy for her night terrors for a period of 6 months with no punitive damages. I assume it's not murder as there is no minimum sentence with there being one for murder.
As a juror she is clearly not guilty, as the only action she could have taken could have also resulted in potential damages in the case of a real emergency (blockade her door, lock her child in a room, etc). There were no reasonable alternative, nor is there any reason to believe she suspected her automatism would lead to this outcome.
>>73062703
First of all, let's imagine that the fire were real. Would throwing her baby out the first floor (I assume you're using British floor numbering, so the second floor to all us Americans), really have been the smartest thing to do?
>>73063500
No, but a genuine good faith attempt to assist during a crisis should not open one up for punishment, even if the attempt lacked necessary forethought. Doing so would set a precedent of abstaining from aid for fear of prosecution (this may already be the case, I don't know I don't start law school until august).
>>73063315
Guilty of murder.
>The legal system has been ordered to prosecute her for the murder of her baby.
There's no mandatory minimum because it kinda defeats the point of the exercise.
>>73063711
Then my sentencing is the same, as clearly the charges in this scenario are clearly misaligned with the offense itself. I get that it's an exercise, but a legal system with no minimum for murder creates loads of other problems. If this were like the US then I would simply give the minimum, as that is what the system calls for, with possibility for parole.
>>73063858
Fair enough.
>>73063673
How do you prove that it was in genuine good faith?
>>73063985
Fucking second time this has happened tonight. Hit enter too early.
Fair enough. This might be something you're interested in, by the way.
http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/virtualjudge/
What would you say if I said that your role as a judge is not to determine which charges ought to be brought, and that the woman has been found guilty of murder through a process by law established and that by imposing your own view based on things outside the goals of sentencing you are in fact a tinpot dictator?
Not that I hold that view necessarily, but it would be the natural response to your position.
>>73062703
Guilty. People have to be held responsible for the consequences of thier actions.
Now if she did everything she could to mitigate the risk then i could be pursuaded to vote not guilty.
Also im not inclined to believe that people should be able to have children without some sort of vetting process. We license people for guns,cars,doctors and general knowledge why is it okay to just wontonly bringing another human life in the world (when life is supaspecial according to religious nutjobs) okay but making sure that person is fit to raise a child neglected?
>>73064102
I'm simply adjudicating within the confines of a lacking legal system; as there is no minimum sentencing, I am free to decide which sentence I believe would bring justice for this crime. As the defendant clearly did not act with malice or, from the evidence presented, negligence, I feel the best possible outcome to be prevention for future incidents.
With more information, or a firmer sentencing structure, I feel I could make a better ruling. But as it stands now I am an imperfect agent in an imperfect system. This is justice as I see fit and I say so with the due diligence demanded of this position.
>>73064209
>People have to be held responsible for the consequences of thier actions.
The defence would argue that Mrs Griggs did not actually take the actions, though. The automatism defence is a defence claiming that the guilty act was never committed by the defendant.
If your argument aligns with the prosecution, that Mrs Griggs did not do enough, knowing that she had night terrors, then you'll need to consider whether you are punishing Mrs Griggs for failing to do "the impossible" which would be hazard-proofing her room. The other anon brought up a salient point - that bars on the window, for example, are a danger in case of real fire.
>>73064478
>I am free to decide which sentence I believe would bring justice for this crime.
True, but if I point you to the five goals of sentencing:
deterrence, security of the community, denunciation of crime, punishment, and rehabilitation
Is a sentence involving no jail time really appropriate for a murderer in terms of punishment and denunciation?
Again, not saying I disagree with you, but these are the arguments against you.
>>73064010
Would it not be the prosecutions burden to prove the action was not in good faith? As it stands my client has the presumption of innocence which will remain until the prosecution has presented enough evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that my client was acting out of anything but genuine desire to do good.
>>73064209
>not murder
>guilty of murder
What?
>>73064209
>Guilty. People have to be held responsible for the consequences of thier actions.
in the US, we punish people for 3 reasons:
rehabilitation-make the person better
deterrence-make an example out of the person
retribution-"get back" at the person for their criminal acts
punishing a person for something they have no control over is pointless
you come off as a sadist
>>73064664
This sentence serves the purpose entirely of deterring this from occurring again in the future and secures the community from suffering so again. The sentencing also reinforces in others that automatism such as this should be treated. It is my judgment that punishment is not needed further than the mother now dealing with the emotional weight of having killed her child during her period of automatism.
Again, this could be remedied by instituting a minimum sentence, but until such a time this is, in my formal opinion, the best course of action to insure justice is done.
Dig the exercise by the way; been anxious about returning to school after teaching for 2 years, so it's nice forcing myself to get in that mindset.
>>73062703
>put herself in a position to lose control
...how did she put herself in a position to lose control? She intentionally caused her own night terrors? The analogy doesn't hold.
>>73065356
Took no precautions against actions she might take while experiencing a night terror. She had a history of sleep-walking, sleep-undressing, and preparing meals while asleep. Also a history of thrashing and lashing out when awoken.
(Not sure if that's true but for the purposes of this we'll assume she has a long and chequered past re: this stuff).
>>73065459
when you are sleepwalking or having a night terror, you can still open doors, fit keys in locks, and perform small mechanical calculations.
there is literally nothing you can do to stop yourself from doing something while having a night terror
>>73065565
I know, but Mrs Griggs did literally nothing. Whether or not that's relevant information is up to you.
>>73065459
Additionally, as stated before, any actions that could have had even a miniscule deterring effect for this crime would have opened the mother up for further harm to her child. She behaved within reason according to the case that has been presented thus far.
How big are her tits?
>>73065678
Big, but saggy.
>>73065809
Guilty of murder, the sentence is death. Adjourned.
>>73065459
No mitigating factors and recklessness are not equivalent. The principle of excluded middle does not apply.
Assuming that her story is true and not a full of shit excuse to get away with murder?
Off to the asylum you go for the rest of your life you baby killing piece of shit.
People need to understand that the action of murder cannot be tolerated and the precedent of allowing the 19th century equivalent of the twinkie defense is not the best idea.
If a person has no control over their body then they are no better than an animal and need to be caged as such
>>73066075
>this
>at all like the twinkie defense
Kill yourself. I bet you use the McDonald's coffee case as the poster child for frivolous lawsuits too.
>>73063673
>No, but a genuine good faith attempt to assist during a crisis should not open one up for punishment
Zika is going around. I'm going to shoot a bunch of niggers so they don't have to risk being infected.
Should I be protected from the law? Please say yes.
>>73062703
Guilty of murder but it's just an octmester abortion so give her some money and call her strong.
