A double Tragedy

There was plenty of press coverage on the recent tragedy in Toronto, where a woman jumped in front of a subway train with her infant son.  The infant was killed instantly and the woman succumbed to her injuries over a week later.

One cannot imagine the tragedy and grief experienced by the family.  The legal system added miserably to that grief with the speculation that, if the woman survived, she might be criminally charged with the homicide of her infant son.

It was completely insensitive and moronic to talk about criminal charges at that time.  It is insensitive for obvious reasons. It is moronic if you think through what would happen if she had been charged.

The woman was obviously having some emotional or mental problems.  A person doesn't jump in front of a subway train with an infant child when she is in her right mind.  So, if she was to be charged with an offence, the obvious defence would be that she was of unsound mind at the time the offence occurred.

Her lawyer would undoubtedly have raised temporary insanity as a defence.  The lawyer would also have insisted on a jury trial.  Can anyone contemplate a jury of 12 people coming to the conclusion that the woman was NOT suffering from a disease of the mind when she jumped in front of the train?  I don't think so.

The result would be that she would be committed to a mental facility until she was deemed to be of sound mind.  She was probably suffering some form of depression which could be treated and would result in her no longer being a risk to herself and others in a  short period of time, meaning that she would be released.

So what would have been the point of a prosecution? Why wouldn't we just have ensured that she got the proper medical care to treat her for her injuries and whatever condition caused her to jump in front of the train in the first place? 

Could we not have let the family recover from this in peace, without the fear of a public prosecution and trial?  If Dr. Killinger-Johnson had lived through her injuries, couldn't we let her focus on her health and dealing with the tragedy and the cause of the tragedy?  Surely a trial would not have been conducive to her mental health.

The crown attorney has an obligation not to proceed with a charge if he or she feels that there is no reasonable prospect for a conviction.  Certainly, this is a case where the crown attorney's discretion ought to have been exercised early and ended any speculation of  charges being laid.

Of course, that's just my opinion.