Dear Zachary - look at it PDF

Preview

Summary

look at it...

Description

For this case it is clear that there were many policy failures within both the American and Canadian criminal justice systems. For the American system, their failure involved the allowance for Shirley to leave the USA even though there was a lot of evidence against her. When the news first got out about the death of Andrew, Dr. Clark Simpson knew of Shirley Turner’s whereabouts. Upon further questioning, he would inform the Pennsylvania State Troopers that she had been in town prior to Andrew’s passing and further stated, “Find her and I think you’ll find who did this”. Andrew was shot five times, the ammunition found at the scene was CCI 22 caliber bullets in which there were six spent casings and one live round. Interestingly enough, Shirley also owned a Phoenix arms 22 caliber handgun, in which she took lessons with a firearm instructor who confirmed that at her last lesson she was using the same CCI 22 caliber bullets found at the scene and also confirmed that due to a malfunction, her gun would sometimes eject live rounds onto floor – also found at the scene. Upon request of the gun, Turner stated that she had given the gun to Andrew and had further claimed that she was home sick all day the day of his death. While claiming to have been home sick, her phone records showed her placing calls along highway routes between Council Bluffs and Latrobe before and after the murder. After realizing her story didn’t add up, Shirley changed her story again, claiming her memory was fogy. There were many red flags and inconsistencies with Turner’s story, yet she was still allowed to pack her bags and move back to St. John’s, Newfoundland. With all this evidence in mind, she should have restricted from leaving the country until the case had been solved or until she was no longer deemed a possible suspect. On December 12, 2001, Turner was arrested for the murder of Bagby and though the charges against her were very serious she was released on bail the same day. All Shirley had to do was post $75,000 in sureties. The bail policy would fail to keep Turner behind bars even though, she was clearly not the jurisdiction they wanted her in, thus, she’s fled, and secondly, due to the seriousness of the crime she could’ve been a risk to the public. Evidently, Dr. John Doucet, Shirley’s psychiatrist, paid $65,000 of her bail. This is considered to be Professional Misconduct and thus a violation of the doctor-patient ethics. Perhaps, if there was more attention paid to this then Shirley would not have had the chance to get out on bail. With the blatant allowance of her release, the Canadian criminal justice system let a probable premeditated first-degree murderer walk the streets. The initial extradition of Turner began on December 12, 2001, upon her first arrest. On November 14, 2002, nearly a year later, Judge Derek Greene would order the incarceration of Shirley Turner, awaiting a decision for the Minister of Justice to surrender her to the United Sates. After only serving two months, Justice Welsh conclude that, “There is no psychological disorder that would give concern about the potential harm to the public, as her crime, while violent was specific in nature”. So even if she committed the crime, the judged reasoned that her crime wasn’t directed at public, thus, she was released on another $75,000 posting in which not a penny had to be paid. With that, the Government of Canada would let a probable premeditated first-degree murderer walk the streets again. Not only should she have not been released, but she was also given full custody of Zachary. Shirley shouldn’t have had the privilege of having full custody of Zachary, specifically due to the seriousness of her accusation. There were several letters sent out to the Family and Child Services in Newfoundland claiming that David and Kathleen were great people and a much better fit to have legal custody of Zachary, but they never heard anything back. Family and Child services were negligent in their duties to protect Zachary and thus indirectly contributed to his death. Elster (1987) argued that “in most Western countries, that disputed custody decisions ought to be settled exclusively or nearly exclusively according to what is in the child's best interest” (p. 5). The Legal system failed to take into consideration the child’s best interest in this

case as Shirley was not fit to be a mother and thus, David and Kathleen should’ve had full custody of the child. Ultimately, the Justice System failed Zachary in multiple way with many policy failures that contributed to his preventable death.

After watching this documentary, I was able to analyze and compare the governmental polices prior to the ‘Dear Zachary’ case and after. My main focus is that the Canadian government should not have ever allowed Shirley to have full custody of Zachary after being accused of a murder. The courts didn’t appear to have done a pre-sentence report, which is used to acquire more information about the offender’s background. Shirley’s ex-boyfriend told the state police that she attempted suicide on his front door and threatened to kill him after they broke up. Next, there were eight people that had restraining orders against her. Finally, looking back at her jail records, the psychiatrist put her on suicide watch every 15 minutes and she was seen as incredibly disruptive and even threatened to stab another inmate. All these facts would be ignored thus allowing for Turner to freely walk the streets and have full custody of Zachary. It was very clear that Tuner suffered from some sort of undiagnosed mental illness. Troitschanski states (2017) “An undiagnosed illness in a parent, or a parent who is in denial about a diagnosis, cannot be treated and that spells trouble” (para 6). Upon the death of their son and grandson, David and Kathleen were outraged with the justice system and vowed to incorporate change within governmental policies. In the fall of 2009, a private member’s bill was introduced. This bill added a clause to the Criminal Code stating that bail could be denied if deemed necessary for the protection of youth under the age of 18 (Parliament of Canada, 2010). In 2010, Governor General, David Johnston, gave Royal Assent to Bill C-464, making it law in Canada. The goal of this bill was for courts to take into consideration the safety of a child when in custody of a parent who is charged with a serious crime. Reference Elster, J. (1987). Solomonic Judgments: The Best Interest of the Child. The University of Chicago Law Review, 54(1), 1-45. doi:10.2307/1599714 Troitschanski, A. (2017, February 20). Feldstein Family Law Group P.C. Retrieved from https://www.separation.ca/videos/child-custody-and-access/mental-illness-and-parenting/ Parliament of Canada. (December 2010). Private Member’s Bill C-464 (40-3)—Royal Assent— An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody)—Parliament of Canada. Retrieved January 28, 2020, from https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/bill/C464/royal-assent/page-24...