My initial reaction when reading the headline today was, WHAT!?! (see article here) Meredith Borowiec just killed two babies by putting them in the dumpster (leaving them for dead) and she can walk the streets in 18 months? I think my reaction is telling. To me, this woman ought to get punished with more severity. Why? Because I am a firm believer that people should get what they deserve when we are in a position to give it. I suppose my retributivism runs deeper than I initially thought. Where is the justice for those two innocent lives? 18 months?! Before delving into a philosophical debate over basic desert, retributivism, consequentialism and the like, I’d like to ask others: Does this punishment fit the crime? Is this decision consistent? Why is killing new-born babies not on par with killing a 5-year-old? Alberta law seems OFF on this!
Calgary Woman Gets 18 More Months In Prison (36 Total!) For Killing 2 Children?
Posted on January 30, 2014 by Justin Caouette
A Philosopher's Take 
Landbeyond
January 31, 2014
The article indicates she will serve a total of 36 months.
On the face of it this seems disproportionate to the crime. However, one could question whether a longer sentence would deter anyone in a similar situation and mental state from doing the same thing. She would appear to lack any sense of responsibility and is quite probably mentally disturbed and in need of psychological care.
Yes, your reaction is telling. There can be no “justice for those two innocent lives”; they are beyond it. Your retributivism does appear to run deep.
If philosophy is to have any meaning in our lives it should not be left outside the courtroom.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
January 31, 2014
I agree! Philosophy NEEDS to be in the courtroom, good philosophy! Particularly, in this Canadian courtroom. Consequentialist justifications for punishment are as weak as I’ve heard. One could levy more successful reductio ad absurdum arguments against it than one can levy against moral relativism. She is not being punished because of deterrence nor is she being punished to prevent further harms. She is being punished because we, as a society, thinks she DESERVES to be punished. My guess is that most of us think she deserves much more as well.
For the record, and a side note, determinism doesn’t worry me AT ALL. I think it’s a bogus scientific take on the world.
LikeLike
Clare Flourish
January 31, 2014
My lawyer’s answer is that I cannot judge: the judge will have heard the evidence, including any in mitigation, and assigned a sentence according to it. The mitigating facts might be so overwhelming that the sentence is unusually retributive. Remember that you learn of it from journalists.
LikeLike
trueandreasonable
January 31, 2014
I am not sure what the difference between infanticide and murder would be. I’m also not clear on the Canadian Judicial system. Did she plead insanity? Was there a ruling on that?
At least a few of the points indicate premeditation.
The thing is normal people don’t understand when people are simply psychopaths so our first reaction is that she must be mentally disturbed. I’m not ruling that out, but we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that she is just an extremely selfish person that simply does not care about anyone else. If they cause her problems she would just as soon kill them. Sadly this is just the way some people are and it is not due to any particular mental illness.
However if she were just a sociopath and not mentally disturbed I would think she would just get an abortion. It sounds like she knew she didn’t want the children when she was pregnant. The sociopath wont care about the life either way, but would at least recognize that she wouldn’t be prosecuted for an abortion, whereas someone mentally ill might not.
I recall reading that there is also a gender bias in sentencing. Men get the longer sentence. But it seems to me the root of the bias is discrimination against women. I suppose we can only speculate, but it might be the “women and children” type view. That “women and children” should be lumped together and distinguished from the men. As if women like children have a diminished mental capacity or ability to control themselves therefore they get more lenient sentences. Otherwise i am not sure.
It’s also possible that since they were “her” children they were not fully considered people but sort of quasi possessions.
LikeLike