NARRATIVE REPORT
MURDER MORAL CASE
MORAL CASE
In a quiet Houston suburb in 2001, a mother of five, struggling with severe
postpartum depression and psychosis, made a fateful decision one June
morning. Believing she was protecting her children from eternal
damnation. She drowned each of her young children in the family bathtub.
When she later called 911, she confessed that she killed her five children,
leading to a high-profile trial that would raise tough questions about her
mental state, the health-care system, and the influence of untreated
mental illness on tragic actions. Her. case became a national conversation
on postpartum mental health, the limits of personal responsibility, and the
complexities of compassion within the law.
MORAL ISSUE
The accused is medically diagnosed with multiple mental disorders which
greatly affected her behaviors and perspectives in life.
Although her disorder could have been improved or prevented, due to
lack of support system, she was unable to undergo a proper medication or
treatment.
The doctors insisted of doing more examinations to observe and improve
the woman`s condition, however, it was denied by the family as they
believed that it was not a severe and serious condition to focus on.
The accused has been a good mother of five daughter, and member of
the community, with no further record of violence despite being mentally
ill.
She has an erroneous conscience as she intended to save the life of her
five children from being miserable. It was from her perspective, as a
mentally unstable mother, that they would not be able to suffer if they will
be out of this world.
The lack of husband`s accountability as well as the parents of the
accused were observed all throughout the case review and court trial.
MORAL EVALUATION
Murder is a violation of the seventh commandment of God, "Thou shall
not kill.” It’s morally wrong if one committed murder, on the right state of
mind, or fully conscious to distinguish what is right and wrong. However,
in this case, killing is justified since the accused suffered from a mental
disorder which has significantly affected how she acted and behaved.
Imbecility and insanity are exempting circumstances from criminal liability
under Philippine law, while the insane may be liable if they acted during a
lucid interval. Lucid interval refers to temporary sanity of a person.
The accused, who was not in the right state of mind during the
commission of crime is not punishable by Phillipine law. In this case, the
accused had considered killing the kids for two years. This emphasize a
consequent act which renders a person liable although in the ground of
insanity during a court trial. However, due to psychological issues of the
subject, it was proven that her acts are purely the product of mental
disorder.
Parents are obliged to take care of each member of the household with
diligence of a good father of a family. Killing the kids, where a mother
believes that it was the best for them is morally wrong, nevertheless, due
to mental disability, the mother's action is mitigated by civil and criminal
exemptions.
The accused has multiple mental disorders and receive no proper and
sufficient medical support from both the household and society. It would
not worsen the accused condition if individuals involved are accountable
and compassionate enough to establish medical interventions.
There is no existing legal ruling and jurisdiction as to how this kind of
specific conflict can be further resolved.
MORAL RESPONSE
The state law has to establish proper regulation and measures in order to
ensure that considerations are given while also upholding equitable , just,
and firm legal system.
The household, particularly, the husband should develop moral
accountability. The death of five children could have been prevented if
they were more compassionate, understanding, and attentive.
Medical professionals should develop sense of care and regard to
mentally ill people. A facility that would cater patient needs, would heart
out and respond to their concerns in order to ensure a full recovery from
their mental shortcomings.
The husband should have temporarily handed their five children to their
closed or trusted relatives. In this way, their safety would be more likely
observed.
The state should also recognize their role in promoting a holistic, safe,
and nurturing environment. The state should have been more
compassionate and attentive to people, particularly those who are in
greater need of care and understanding.
The community must be also part of this advocacy so more and more
individuals would be aware and engaged in the interventions provided for
the mentally ill people.
