|
Filicidal Women: Jail or Psychiatric Ward?
Results
Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences
Of the 32 women, 9 were granted bail prior to the trial procedure. Information
about initial criminal charges was made available for 22 of the women,
and 14 were initially charged with first-degree murder (Table 2). The charge
at the actual time of the trial had changed; in fact, the court accused
one-third of the women with first-degree murder and another one-third with
second-degree murder. The trial outcome found 18 women guilty (18/32, 56%),
and one-half received a verdict of manslaughter.
|
Table 2 Legal process of filicidal women
|
|
|
Initial charges (%)
|
Trial charges (%)
|
Verdicts
(%)
|
|
First-degree murder
|
64
|
32
|
0
|
|
Second-degree murder
|
18
|
29
|
13
|
|
Manslaughter
|
4.5
|
23
|
28
|
|
Infanticide
|
9
|
10
|
9
|
|
Criminal negligence
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
|
Others
|
4.5
|
6
|
0
|
|
Not guilty by reason of insanity
|
—
|
—
|
41
|
|
Total
|
22
|
31
|
32a
|
|
aOne woman remained unfit to stand trial
|
In our sample, 14 received a medical disposition (14/32, 44%). All except
1 of these women was found NGRI. The exception was a woman who remained
unfit to stand trial because of severe neurological problems that related
to the offence.
Table 3 displays court dispositions. Almost all women (94%) who were found
guilty were sentenced to prison. The length of detention varied from 2
years minus 1 day of imprisonment to mandatory life sentences. Five women
were sentenced to life imprisonment (5/18, 28%).
|
Table 3 Sentences of filicidal women
|
|
Probation (%)
|
6
|
|
Incarceration (%)
|
94
|
|
Incarceration
|
|
2 years minus 1 day (%)
|
16
|
|
2 to 5 years (%)
|
28
|
|
5 to 10 years (%)
|
16
|
|
³ 10 years (%)
|
6
|
|
Life (%)
|
28
|
Comparison Between the 2 Subgroups
Significant differences were found for 6 variables. Socio-economic status
differed between the subgroups (Note 2). Results indicate that women sentenced
to prison had a lower socioeconomic status than those referred to psychiatric
institutions (77% vs 39%; c2 = 4.43, df 1, P = 0.035). The criminal history
differed among the subgroups; one-third of the women sentenced to prison
had a prior criminal history, but this was not the case for any of the
medically oriented women (c2 = 5.37, df 1, P = 0.020, Fisher’s P = 0.028).
Similarly, those sentenced to prison had a more frequent substance abuse
history than had medically oriented women (29% vs 0%; c2 = 3.94, df 1,
P = 0.047, Fisher’s P = 0.125).
Significant differences were found in the psychiatric history: all the
women who were medically oriented and 41% of the women who were found guilty
(c2 = 11.47, df 1, P = 0.001, Fisher’s P = 0.001) had a previous psychiatric
record. Most medically oriented women suffered from psychotic symptoms
(62%). None who were found guilty presented with such symptoms (c2 = 13.60,
df 1, P = 0.000, Fisher’s P = 0.000). With respect to the first orientation
following the homicide, the subgroups did differ significantly. In fact,
most who were medically oriented at the end of the legal process were initially
taken care of by the health care system (71% vs 22%; c2 = 7.75, df 1, P
= 0.005).
Discussion
Our results indicate that a slight majority of women received a penal disposition
(56%). The most common verdict was manslaughter, as shown in other studies,
but none received a verdict of first-degree murder (19,28). Some of the
women in our study received a verdict of second-degree murder. This proportion
is high, compared with results from other studies, wherein the percentage
of women receiving a sentence for murder ranged from 0% to 2% (21,27–29).
To our knowledge, the research done by Marks and Kumar in Scotland is the
only study that identifies a high percentage of women who received a verdict
of murder (15.4%, 2/13) (19). However, it is important to note that, in
Scotland, there is no legal charge available for infanticide.
The percentage of women who received a medical disposition is lower than
are other results collected in the literature on filicide (1,28,29). This
discrepancy can be partly attributed to inclusion of probation orders with
a condition of psychiatric treatment, which we consider to be mainly a
legal disposition.
In our sample, 9 women killed a child under age 12 months, and 3 were found
guilty of infanticide (33%). These results contrast with data from the
UK and Hong Kong, where the percentage of women who are found guilty of
infanticide is higher (28,29). Often, an infanticide charge is associated
with postpartum depression. The major arguments against sentencing women
who suffered from a postpartum depression at the time of the offence are
as follows: 1) an illness beyond their control caused these women’s homicidal
acts, 2) they have already suffered enough, 3) they have lost their offspring
and have to live with the guilt related to their behaviour, and 4) they
do not represent a threat to others as long as they do not have other children
(32,33).
Data concerning the length of prison sentence indicate that most women
(14/18, 78%) received a sentence that exceeded 2 years, and 5 women received
a sentence of life imprisonment. These results differ from other studies,
wherein fewer than 25% of women received a prison sentence or a sentence
of life imprisonment (19,21,27–29). This suggests that the legal system
in the province of Quebec treats maternal filicide more harshly than do
other jurisdictions. One interesting consideration for further studies
would be how the legal system reacts in other parts of Canada toward the
same type of offence.
Our data indicate that women who received a penal disposition had a lower
socioeconomic status than did those who received a medical disposition.
Similarly, other studies confirmed this result (29,34). Possibly, women
of low socioeconomic status were judged more severely by the judicial system
(35–37).
Variables such as the criminal and substance abuse history were more often
present among women who received a penal disposition. Of women sent to
prison, only a low percentage had a prior criminal record (1 or few criminal
convictions). No medically oriented women had such a record. Holden and
others showed that NGRI women more likely had a history of drug abuse than
did criminally responsible women (30). They found, however, that criminal
history did not differ significantly.
Our data indicate that, according to Canadian law, medically oriented women
were more likely to have suffered from psychosis at the time of the offence
than did women who received a penal disposition. In the same way, women
in this subgroup showed more incidence of a psychiatric history. Other
authors have found similar results for women who killed their children
(30), for women or men who committed a homicide (38), and for women or
men who threatened to kill (39).
Our subgroups did not differ in demographic characteristics; specifically,
marital status, the number or age of the victims, and suicide attempts
concomitant with the murder and methods used to kill their victims. The
homicidal motivation does not differ when studied according to the prevalence
of altruism, contrary to what Holden and others predicted (30).
Conclusion
Our results indicate that a higher percentage of women were sent to prison,
compared with other samples from different studies. Those sent to prison
in our legal system received harsher sentences, compared with results from
Commonwealth countries. It is important to clearly understand why some
women receive more severe sentences than do others and to look at what
is the reality concerning filicidal fathers.
There were interesting results from this study. First, differences were
found between the subgroups of women on several variables: socioeconomic
status, criminal history, substance abuse history, psychiatric history,
psychotic symptoms, and type of initial disposition. This suggests that
these variables play an important role in the legal outcome of these women,
whether they are medically or judicially oriented. Other variables might
relate to the type of disposition. Possibly, the mother’s behaviour following
the offence (presence or lack of remorse), the nature of the evaluation,
the sex of the judge and lawyer, and the court proceedings could play a
significant role. The interaction between these elements would be interesting
to observe in future quantitative and qualitative studies.
These results suggest that the profiles of the 2 subgroups of women differ
on many aspects. This supports the hypothesis put forward by some authors
that 2 distinct subgroups of filicidal women exist. These statistical differences,
however, do not necessarily discriminate these 2 subgroups in terms of
clinical relevance, except for whether or not psychosis existed at the
time of the offence and at the time of psychiatric history. For clinical
intervention in filicidal prevention, classifying the women who are being
assessed according to these subgroups does not seem to matter. Evaluating
dangerousness will nevertheless be done according to whether or not delusions
exist involving children, the age and number of children, the availability
of weapons, and the possibility of having another responsible adult take
care of the children until the crisis is resolved.
Notes
1. Our sample is from 1981 to 1991. The label “not criminally responsible
on account of a mental disorder” has been used since 1992 but refers basically
to the same status.
2. The socioeconomic status was inferred according to whether they were
working or not, the level of scolarity, and the availability of social
assistance or unemployment benefits.
References
1. Resnick PJ. Child murder by parents: a psychiatric review of filicide.
Am J Psychiatry 1969;126:325–34.
2. Bourget D, Bradford JMW. Homicidal parents. Can J Psychiatry 1990;35:233–8.
3. Myers SA. Maternal filicide. American Journal of Disabled Child 1970;120:534–6.
4. Harder T. The psychopathology of infanticide. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1967;43:
196–245.
5. Marleau JD, Roy R, Laporte L, Webanck T, Poulin B. Homicide d’enfants
commis par la mère. Can J Psychiatry 1995;40:142–9.
6. Lomis MJ. Maternal filicide: a preliminary examination of culture and
victim sex. Int J Law Psychiatry 1986;9:503–6.
7. Browne WJ, Palmer AJ. A preliminary study of schizophrenic women who
murdered their children. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1975;26:71–2.
8. Lewis CF, Baranoski MV, Buchanan JA, Benedek EP. Factors associated
with weapon use in maternal filicide. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:613–8.
9. McKee R, Shea SJ. Maternal filicide: a cross national comparison. J
Clin Psychol 1998;54:679–87.
10. Meszaros K, Fischer-Danzinger D. Extended suicide attempt: psychopathology,
personality and risk factors. Psychopathology 2000;33:5–10.
11. Fedorowycz O. L’Homicide au Canada 1998. Juristat 1999;19:1–15.
12. Copeland AR. Homicide in childhood: the Metro-Dade country experience
from 1956 to 1982. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1985;6:21–4.
13. Kaplun D, Reich R. The murdered child and his killers. Am J Psychiatry
1976;133:809–13.
14. Jason J. Child homicide spectrum. American Journal of Disabled Child
1983;137:578–81.
15. Adelson L. Slaughter of the innocents: a study of forty-six homicides
in which the victims were children. N Engl J Med 1961;64:1345–9.
16. Adelson L. Pedicide revisited: the slaughter continues. Am J Forensic
Med Pathol 1991;12:16–26.
17. Fornes P, Druilhe L, Lecomte D. Childhood homicide in Paris, 1990–1993:
a case report of 81 cases. J Forensic Sci 1995;40:201–4.
18. Krugman RD. Fatal child abuse: analysis of 24 cases. Pediatrician 1983-1985;12:68–72.
19. Marks MN, Kumar R. Infanticide in Scotland. Med Sci Law 1996;36:299–305.
20. Somander LH, Rammer LM. Intra- and extrafamilial child homicide in
Sweden 1971–1980. Child Abuse Negl 1991;15:45–55.
21. Marks MN, Kumar R. Infanticide in England and Wales. Med Sci Law 1993;33:329–39.
22. Wright C, Leroux JP. Les enfants victimes d’actes criminels violents.
Juristat 1991;11:1–13.
23. Myers SA. The child slayer: a 25-year survey of homicides involving
preadolescent victims. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1967;17:211–3.
24. Goetting A. When parents kill their young children: Detroit 1982–1986.
J Fam Violence 1988;3:339–46.
25. Mackay RD. The consequences of killing very young children. Crim Law
Rev 1993;40:21–30.
26. Wilcynzski A. Child homicide. London: Greenwich Medical Media; 1997.
27. Wilcynzski A. Images of women who kill their infants: the mad and the
bad. Women Crim Justice 1991;2:71–88.
28. Cheung PTK. Maternal filicide in Hong Kong, 1971–1985. Med Sci Law
1986;26:185–92.
29. d’Orban PT. Women who kill their children. Br J Psychiatry 1979;134:560–71.
30. Holden CE, Burland AS, Lemmen CA. Insanity and filicide: women who
murder their children. New Dir Ment Health Serv 1996;69:25–34.
31. Laporte L. Le contrôle pénal et/ou thérapeutique des femmes filicides
au Québec de 1981 à 1991. [Master’s thesis]. Université de Montréal; 1999.
32. Ewing CP. Fatal families. The dynamics of intrafamilial homicide. Thousand
Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1997.
33. Pitt SE, Bale EM. Neonaticide, infanticide, and filicide: a review
of the literature. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1995;23:375–86.
34. Roy S. Le genre comme fondement de la différenciation des formes de
contrôle social : l’exemple de l’incarcération. Les cahiers du GRAPPP 1990;10.
35. Horwitz AV. The logic of social control. London: Plenum Press; 1990.
p 277.
36. Black DJ. The behavior of law. London: Academic Press; 1976. p 143.
37. Landreville P. Normes sociales et normes pénales: notes pour une analyse
socio-politique des normes. Les cahiers de l’école de criminologie. Montreal:
Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 12, 1983; p 69.
38. Packer IK. Homicide and the insanity defense: a comparison of sane
and insane murderers. Behav Sci Law 1987;5:25–35.
39. Barnes MT, Gordon WC, Hudson SM. The crime of threatening to kill.
J Interpers Violence 2001;16:312–9.
Manuscript received March 2002, revised and accepted July 2002.
1. Criminologist, Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec.
2. Psychologist, Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec.
3. Anthropologist, Demographer, Research Center, Institut Philippe-Pinel
de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec.
4. Psychiatrist, Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec.
5. Criminologist, Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec.
Address for correspondence: Ms L Laporte, Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal,
10905 Henri-Bourassa Est, Montreal, QB H1C 1H1
e-mail: linelaporte@hotmail.com
1 | 2 | 3
|
