commentary by Patrick H. Moore
From our vantage point here in the USA, it is easy to assume that the criminal justice systems of other nations are similar to ours, with the exception that we are guiltily aware of the fact that many nations have long since deleted the Death Penalty from its roster of potential sentences.
Generally speaking, I have observed that the British system, like ours, is not reluctant to hand out harsh sentences for violent crimes that result in death, including life in prison in some instances.
Last week, however, in the sort of case that would have hordes of American crime followers shrilling demanding LWOP (or even the DP), the English prosecution in a proceeding at the historic Old Bailey court, has seemingly seen eye-to-eye with the defense in seeking a mediated sentence for a severely depressed woman who in despair suffocated her three young severely physically handicapped children before attempting to kill herself.
Here are the facts of the case as reported by Matt Prodger of BBC and Amanda Andrade of Opposing Views:
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has accepted 42-year-old Tania Clarence’s guilty plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, the Old Bailey has heard.
The 42-year-old mother from New Malden, south-west London, has denied murder. The prosecution said Mrs. Clarence killed her three-year-old twin sons Ben and Max and daughter Olivia, aged four, because she was depressed and wanted to end their suffering.
The three little ones were found dead at their home on April 22nd. They all suffered from type 2 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a genetic disorder that affects nerves responsible for muscle function and causes the muscles to waste away over time. SMA can lead to skeletal deformities, abnormal curvature of the spine, and problems with walking, eating, drinking and breathing. In short, in severe cases, it is a hideous and heartbreaking disease.
In addressing the judge Mr. Justice Sweeney, the Crown prosecutor Zoe Johnson QC sounded not unlike an American defense attorney, explaining that Mrs. Clarence was deeply concerned about the quality of life (or lack thereof) of her children, and felt that their chronic suffering was a more important consideration than their continued survival. The prosecution also frankly acknowledged that Mrs. Clarence, who was in the grips of a major depressive episode, suffocated her children because she wanted to end her suffering and that of her three children. Prosecutor Johnson also stated that given the combination of factors present at the time of the incident, her actions were “entirely understandable.”
“It is clear on the evidence Mrs. Clarence killed her three children because she wanted to end their suffering and at the time she committed the act she could not see any alternative or any other way out of their joint suffering.”
It will probably be a cold day in hell before we hear an American prosecutor in a multiple child death case in which the distraught mother ended the kids’ lives saying anything of this nature.
Ms. Clarence’s actual defense attorney, Jim Sturman QC, described the difficulties she faced while attempting the impossible task of caring for her three children:
“She was manifesting stress throughout the life of the children by their suffering and caring for three children with this condition was exhausting, distressing, debilitating and turned out to be overwhelming.”
Mr. Sherman also pointed out that at the time of her children’s deaths, Ms. Clarence “bitterly regretted” the fact she had survived her suicide attempt, but feels the deepest regret over the death of her children.
He also suggested that “This offending did occur whilst Mrs. Clarence was suffering from an abnormality of the mind.”
BBC correspondent Matt Prodger, who was in court for the hearing, reported that Mrs Clarence could “see no hope for the future” and could no longer cope with caring for her disabled children.
After Mr. Justice Sweeney accepted Mrs. Clarence’s guilty plea on the charge of manslaughter, Attorney Sturman requested that she be sent to a hospital instead of prison, arguing that a court-ordered hospitalization would be a “just and compassionate” sentence.
The key word here is “compassionate”.
Mrs. Clarence was not required to be in court for the hearing. She will be sentenced on the 14th of November. The commentators believe Mr. Justice Sweeney will likely accept Attoney Sturman’s request for hospitalization in lieu of prison time.
Mrs Clarence left three notes before allegedly smothering her children and then trying to kill herself. She was discovered bleeding and crying by her distraught nanny and a neighbour, who had both gone to her house based on their concerns for her safety.
* * * * *
Assuming Mrs. Clarence is hospitalized, we of course have no way of knowing whether her confinement will be permanent.
What I do believe and what Attorney Sturman hinted at in his remarks is that no one should feel this defendant will be getting off easy by being hospitalized instead of imprisoned. She will live every day of her life with full awareness that she killed her three tragically handicapped kids and that she, for whatever reasons, was unable to join them in death.
I cannot judge whether her three little ones – given their former reduced condition — are better off having departed this land of the living. What I do know is that I am deeply impressed by the compassion that has been shown by both the prosecution and the defense. There appears to be a sincerity here that is often lacking in American courtrooms where all too often trials deteriorate into gamesmanship and posturing on both sides.
Go tell it on the mountain…