The case against Folbigg also relied on Meadow’s Law – a controversial and now discredited precept that three or more sudden infant deaths in one family were murders until proven otherwise.
Reading the summery. A law that assumes 3 deaths is murder “until prove otherwise”. Ations like childcare while she worked part time and attended the gym seen as suspicious.
People need to remember this is exactly the sort of law some anti choice for women women groups in the US will lead to.
For what it’s worth, Meadow’s law is described by the article as a “precept” because it was never an actual legislated law. Just a concept thought up by a now-discredited British paediatrician. Even taking it on its own terms, it’s a “law” in the way “Betteridge’s Law” or “Cunningham’s Law” are laws.
Ok. Not sure losing 20 years to a court basing ideas on such things is any better. Seems even 20 years ago a defence would be able to provide diverging experts. 20 years ago genetics was fairly well understood even if we know more now. The idea of a family having a common issue was fully expetlcted in the 1990s let alone 2000.
As a anacdotal example. My family surrers from an eye condition. Thar was believed to be the result of a period of illness in my father i. The 70s
My brother had it from 10 and my more recently.
It was about 1990 rhat the experts started to recognise ot was a genetic conditio. Carried by all males. So the time this woman was jailed. The ideas had been well known in science for iver 10 years. Someone would have been able to provide expert witness doubting the paediatric ideals.
But lets be honest. Much of the US laws being instituted in firced borth states is based on similar unsupported ideals)
Fuck, imagine your kids dying from some (at that point) unknown and undetectable genetic disease, and getting thrown into jail on top of that.
Guilty until proven innocent as well!
Australia seems to be a fan of imprisoning mothers whose babies died tragically.
Reading the summery. A law that assumes 3 deaths is murder “until prove otherwise”. Ations like childcare while she worked part time and attended the gym seen as suspicious.
People need to remember this is exactly the sort of law some anti choice for women women groups in the US will lead to.
Not a law. As previously stated on the !world@lemmy.world thread:
Ok. Not sure losing 20 years to a court basing ideas on such things is any better. Seems even 20 years ago a defence would be able to provide diverging experts. 20 years ago genetics was fairly well understood even if we know more now. The idea of a family having a common issue was fully expetlcted in the 1990s let alone 2000.
As a anacdotal example. My family surrers from an eye condition. Thar was believed to be the result of a period of illness in my father i. The 70s
My brother had it from 10 and my more recently.
It was about 1990 rhat the experts started to recognise ot was a genetic conditio. Carried by all males. So the time this woman was jailed. The ideas had been well known in science for iver 10 years. Someone would have been able to provide expert witness doubting the paediatric ideals.
But lets be honest. Much of the US laws being instituted in firced borth states is based on similar unsupported ideals)