So, long time no see! It's been about a year since I last posted here. I guess I just ran out of things to say. Life gets busy and I feel like I should have better things to do with my time than write on the internet....but sadly my test of my life failed miserably as I realized that I really don't have anything better to do. This is not a promise to write more, but perhaps an explanation.
Now, to the real reason I'm writing this post. As some of you may know, I'm studying Law. This means I look at cases, and through scholarly articles until my eyes bleed. However, today I was informed of a case that made my skin crawl and had me questioning a basis of both the Canadian legal system as well as that of the United States. I live in Canada, for reference.
This particular case was brought to my attention through information about a plea for mercy from a convicted killer in the U.S.A. This man, Steven Smith, raped his girlfriend's 6 month old baby to death, and is pleading for mercy from the death penalty.
While I am not normally a proponent for the Death Penalty, and am glad that Canada abolished it, I feel no remorse for the state wanting to murder this man, as he confessed and the evidence is indisputable.
However, while this is horrible, it is not the part that most piqued my interest. The defense for this monster argued that because Smith was drunk he could not therefore, form the necessary intent to be sentenced to death (as Ohio law requires intent to be a necessity when dealing with the death penalty). This is the part that interested me. I started thinking about whether in certain cases involving heinous crimes, whether intent should really be relied heavily upon.
Even in Canada's legal system, in order to get a full blown Murder 1 conviction, you have to prove the Mens Rea (the guilty mind) and the Actus Reus (the guilty act). The mens rea of a crime deals with intent, willfulness, planning, etc. While the actus reus is just the act of the crime itself, in this example it would be the rape, and therefore murder of the 6 month old girl, Autumn. Smith and his legal team are arguing that because of his intoxication, Smith could not form the mens rea requirement, yet the jury persecuted him to the extent of the law, as they should. While I realize that in certain cases where death was accidental the intent of the offender is important, but what can really be accidental in raping a 6 month old. I believe in the legal system there is sometimes too much insistence on the intent of the offender. In Smith's case, whether he intended to kill the child or not should be irrelevant. He was still planning on committing a terrible act to a child, which should have been a foreseeable way to cause death.
I think it is worth mentioning here that this raping, was full blown rape. Penetration included. First of all, what the fuck would posses you to stick your penis inside a 6 month old baby, but that is besides the point.
The test in the legal system is an objective one, and that of a "reasonable person". This test entails the courts looking at what a "reasonable person" aka an everyday ordinary person, what they would do in this situation, or how they would react to a certain situation.
I believe a reasonable person would firstly, not drink until baby rape seems like a good idea, and secondly know that putting your weight on top of a 6 month old for any period of time, (even without the rape part) is a terrible idea. While Smith didn't "intend" to kill this baby, he did intend to rape her and push her face into a pillow to keep her quiet. This is brutal and violent even without the intent of murder. Intent in this case should not be emphasized as a super important part of deciding the severity of the murder charge.In heinous cases such as this I think Intent should take a back seat. I am pleased that the courts have upheld the case so far, and hope that they continue to look at intent as a perhaps less important factor in this case.
I hope the courts continue to do so, and ignore his last plea for his life. I hope that this intent argument does not fly, as it could set a dangerous precedent. Smith is set for execution on May 1st 2013.
Please keep in mind that this is just my understanding of the case, and the events surrounding it after reading the case itself, and looking at a few news sources.
I can't for the life of me decide if I want Smith to die by the state, or if I want him to instead have to suffer life in prison, as child molesters and child killers generally do not do well in prison. If not for the dangerous precedent for the value of intent that could be set for this case, I would advocate for the later option. So I'll just have to keep watching the case, and swallow my revulsion for this man a little, and attempt to view it with an objective eye...but I already know I won't be able to do that.
Ohh, in case you were wondering, the incident of rape happened in around 1998, and Smith is only coming up for execution now.
Sorry for the morbid topic, but after this was brought to my attention i could not hold in my urge to blog about it. I haven't been this mad since reading about the Stubenville rape case, and more specifically, the media portrayal of that case...but that is a post for another time.
Comment what you think about either the case, or my take on Intent. I realize that I am terribly biased.
Becca
XOXOXO
Case:
State v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 367, 2002-Ohio-6659
News Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/steven-smith-death-sentence_n_2996518.html
No comments:
Post a Comment