Infanticide Provisions in a Contemporary Context: Should They Stay, or Should They Go?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enactment of Sections 233 and 237 of the Criminal Code by Parliament aimed to address the historical prevalence of jury nullification in infanticide cases by offering leniency to offenders, particularly women, in dire circumstances due to societal norms, economic constraints, and a lack of support systems. These legislative measures aimed to find a balance between holding individuals accountable for their actions and recognizing the underlying complexities that led to such tragic outcomes. Nevertheless, a critical examination of the evolving societal attitudes towards women, children's rights, and family structures prompts a re-evaluation of the current legal framework surrounding infanticide. This reassessment delves into the intricate interplay of socio-economic factors that historically influenced juries and justified the leniency provided by Sections 233 and 237. This paper argues that the existing infanticide provisions in Canada, particularly Sections 233 and 237, no longer align with modern understandings of moral blameworthiness in cases of infanticide. These sections should be replaced by a statutory defence of diminished responsibility. This proposed shift towards a more flexible and morally informed approach to addressing infanticide within the legal system emphasizes the importance of adapting legal mechanisms to meet evolving standards of justice and ethics in society. This call for reform is rooted in a deep understanding of the historical context that shaped existing laws and a forward-looking vision that prioritizes fairness, accountability, and the protection of vulnerable individuals within the criminal justice system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".