Did you hear about the case in San Bernardino in June
in which an eighteen-year-old mother was given straight probation with no time
in custody after killing her newborn baby?
The defendant, Carmen Uribe, took a pair of scissors and stabbed her
baby in the chest while sitting in the bathtub of her home.
In this case, Ms. Uribe was convicted of second
degree murder, along with assault on a child resulting in death. Unfortunately, the law permits a judge only
two options. One is to sentence the
convicted individual to life in prison; the other alternative is straight
probation.
Ms. Uribe’s parents are devoutly Catholic, and she
kept her pregnancy secret from them.
She did allegedly, however, tell police officers that one of the reasons
she killed the baby was so that it wouldn’t mess up her social life.
The matter was sent out for a probation report and
the probation officer recommended the life sentence, as he did not feel Ms.
Uribe was remorseful. The judge in this
case, James Edwards, decided, as is his right, that he did not agree with the
probation report, and he wanted to go his own way. Judge Edwards has been on the bench for twenty-six years and indicated
that having to decide between life in prison and straight probation was the
most difficult decision of his judicial career. The Judge indicated that he viewed Ms. Uribe as quite
different from the “cold-hearted sociopath that typically stands before me
convicted of murder.” The Judge decided
that, while he obviously did not condone Ms. Uribe’s behavior, a life sentence
would take a tragic situation and just make it worse.
Interestingly, the defense had offered to have
Ms. Uribe plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter before the
trial commenced in exchange for an eleven year sentence! The prosecution turned her down.
What seemed to impress Judge Edwards the most was Ms.
Uribe’s statement to the probation officer that she would like to spend much of
the rest of her life educating other similarly situated girls as to their
options, if they feel like they are in a “no-way-out” situation as she viewed
her own.
I think that the fault here lies with the lawmakers
in Sacramento. A Judge must be given a
number of alternatives in order to produce a fair and appropriate
sentence. What does he do when his only
choices are either life or no time in jail?
The Judge doesn’t want to give either, he realizes neither sentence is
appropriate, but does he err to the side of the defense, or does he err to the
side of the prosecution? Does he give
her no time, or does he give her life?
Hopefully, this case will jump-start the legislature toward passing
legislation which will give bench officers more sentencing flexibility. Had the Judge been able to give
Ms. Uribe five years, or ten years, I imagine he would have done so. Putting him in a position where he has to
take an all-or-nothing approach to sentencing puts the Judge in a tough spot,
and it is not at all beneficial to society, either. Let’s get it going from a legislative standpoint, so the
punishment can fit the crime.