A great case for this is the case of the son: A man marries a woman with a young son. She then dies, but leaves all her money to her son. The man decides that he must murder the child in order to get the money, so while the son is taking a bath, he goes upstairs and drowns the boy.
Now, another scenario: Same premise, only this time, the man walks upstairs, intent on murdering the child, but finds him drowning in the bath already. The man stands and watches as the boy dies, doing nothing.
In this case, she knew what the outcome of inaction would be and what the outcome of action would be. She was very clearly told what options she had and the implications of those options.
As far as I'm concerned, no matter the motive, this was premeditated murder.
“The more you know, the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.” - Bill Watterson
Who Is Chicago Ted?
I find the sentence appropriate. Her actions were wrong, but she isn't nearly the threat to society that most other murders are.
I don't see the outrage. I mean, she obviously had a lot of other stresses, not the least of which being money....I don't understand why everyone wants her punished with a baby with cancer and autism.
I don't think we can really understand the woman's experience or her decision. It is horrible if this had to do with her finances. If she was really trying to hide what she was doing she would have bought the prescriptions wouldn't she? It's a horrible situation and I hope the boy is spared a lot more suffering. He will suffer the loss of his mother, that's for sure.