![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
troubleOnline because I am foolishly updating my list of murdered people with disabilities. Someone please tell me why it is that when a parent murders a disabled child, the defense always brings up "situational crime, not likely to be repeated"? Do they say this about the murder of non-disabled children? Is this the defense now? What about for coworkers? "Well, the defendant is unlikely to ever get a job again, so this is a situation that will never again come up, so let's give them a lighter sentence."
I don't know why people murder their disabled children, I really don't. So I don't know: is it because they're children? As was famously uttered by William Marshall to King Stephen, people do often still posses the hammer and anvil with which to make more children. Is it because they're not likely to be alone with a disabled person again? Average person in North America is going to spend 7 years of their life with a disability, so I find it unlikely that no one who murdered their disabled child will ever never see a disabled person again in their lives: parents, spouses, other children, friends, neighbours, coworkers.
Or is it simply that it's still seen as a mercy to kill a child with a disability, regardless of that child's quality of life? Is that the direction we want to go?
I know prosecutors have a responsibility - one I do respect! - to get their client the best they can out of convictions. But why do they have to go "Well, it was a situational crime, one unlikely to be repeated." Unless they make exactly the same argument for parents who murder their able-bodied children, they need to really think about what the fuck they are saying.
I don't know why people murder their disabled children, I really don't. So I don't know: is it because they're children? As was famously uttered by William Marshall to King Stephen, people do often still posses the hammer and anvil with which to make more children. Is it because they're not likely to be alone with a disabled person again? Average person in North America is going to spend 7 years of their life with a disability, so I find it unlikely that no one who murdered their disabled child will ever never see a disabled person again in their lives: parents, spouses, other children, friends, neighbours, coworkers.
Or is it simply that it's still seen as a mercy to kill a child with a disability, regardless of that child's quality of life? Is that the direction we want to go?
I know prosecutors have a responsibility - one I do respect! - to get their client the best they can out of convictions. But why do they have to go "Well, it was a situational crime, one unlikely to be repeated." Unless they make exactly the same argument for parents who murder their able-bodied children, they need to really think about what the fuck they are saying.
