Opinion: The Great Divide on Infanticide

(DISCLAIMER: This is an opinion piece and the opinions and views expressed here do not represent ISOGG nor the members of ISOGG).

By Katherine Borges

Most Americans have heard of the infamous case of Scott and Laci Peterson of Modesto, California. On Christmas Eve 2002, Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife, Laci, as missing after she supposedly took their dog for a walk. Four months later, Laci's body and that of their unborn son, Conner, washed up on the shores in San Francisco Bay. Scott Peterson was convicted of first degree murder in Laci's death and second degree murder in Conner's death. Their deaths led to the passage of the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004” which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim; if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. Scott Peterson was sentenced to the death penalty for their killings.

I live in a small town on the border of Modesto. This heinous crime affected everyone who lives here and still haunts us to this day.

Fast forward to March 2019 when 57-year-old Theresa Rose Bentaas is arrested for leaving her baby boy to freeze to death in a ditch beside a South Dakota cornfield 38 years ago. The case was solved combining forensics with genetic genealogy. One of our British genetic genealogy colleagues wrote on social media that the mother was the “victim” and should “not be treated as a criminal.” This sparked a long debate. Especially amongst the Americans who had a differing of opinions about this, and it carried over to the “Family Tree Live” conference held at London's Alexandra Palace 26-27 April 2019.

A panel discussion included American law enforcement's use of ancestral DNA; which I felt was biased because there were no Americans on the panel. Why is it ok to give opinions on American laws with no Americans at the table? Perhaps an International Law attorney would have been apropos to be on the panel since laws vary by state.

Between the panel and additional conversations, I was shocked and nauseated to hear the British POV on infanticide. My environment. My culture. My religion. Are all against infanticide. 

But all of this emotion-filled discussion wasn't for naught. For myself and many other Americans had never heard of the UK infanticide laws. Once it is understood that this is their law and culture, then it's maybe a smidgen less shocking how they can feel that the South Dakota case should have leniency showed. But let me be clear here: I'm saying I understand it, not that I agree with it.

And I also think the British and their like-minded peers in the Commonwealth and Ireland need to incorporate some of the same understanding for America. For example, one of the issues I heard raised was their concern that their DNA could be used to convict someone in America and the person might receive the death penalty. They need to realize they can't paint everyone with the same brush in America. As far as infanticide goes, two recent cases prove that America doesn't always throw the book at and execute baby killers. A Pennsylvania woman will receive no prison time after her 11-week old baby died from ingesting a lethal mix of drugs in breastmilk. Another woman received no prison time after she tried to drown her newborn baby in a McDonald's restaurant toilet.

The biggest take away to impart is this: We have no say in UK et. al. laws and the way they are administered, and they have no say in ours (US). Administration of laws is not at our level so it's pointless to debate. If you're going to engage anyway, just remember that every case is not black and white in how it will turn out.