Is it 'ableism' to allow a plea of diminished responsibility by Tania Clarence?
I was quite perturbed to find that some people on Twitter considered that it was "ableism" that a plea of diminished responsibility was accepted in the trial of Tania Clarence, the mother who killed her three disabled children who all had spinal muscular atrophy, a progressive and terminal condition. Here are some of the comments:
Maria Mc@NeurolawGuy @SFdirewolf I disagree. The prosecution statement implied that disability is unbearable, and hastening death is somehow logical
@NeurolawGuy @SFdirewolf Looking at emotional exhaustion, despair, sleep deprivation, parallels w/ infanticide may have been appropriate 1/2
@NeurolawGuy @SFdirewolf Deciding that in the face of a child's suffering, killing may be an act of mercy- that's lawmaking. Not CPS job
I have not been able to find anything in the press reporting that amounts to this, and it would be highly surprising if there was. "Mercy killing" has been the subject of CPS guidelines relating to situations where an adult has expressed a settled wish to die. Otherwise, "mercy killing" is not a defence to murder, although in situations like those of Tania Clarence where there is an abnormality of mind which has affected the responsibility of the defendant, there is a partial defence. This is an excuse, which has nothing to do with the nature of the act or even the victim, but the mental condition of the defendant. To label this verdict as "ableism" is crude exploitation of a tragic episode to make a political point.
No comments:
Post a Comment