Christis


	Contents page \| Christis archive \| Submissions \| Advertising \| Links page \| Meet the team \| Cartoons \| Subscribe \| Christis timetable \| Search Christis

Death and the Maiden

Dave Spence reflects on the trial of Louise Woodward

Anyone who’s picked up a newspaper recently will have heard about the trial, in America, of Louise Woodward, the English au pair girl arrested over the death of a baby boy, Matthew Eappen, in her care. In the U.S. the jury found her guilty of second degree murder which was reduced to manslaughter by the judge and she was released, her custodial sentence being equal to the time she had already served in remand.

Throughout all of this, however, there was an overwhelming sense of support from the people from her community in Cheshire. They refused to believe she was guilty and shared in her sorrow when her initial verdict, guilty of murder in the second degree with a mandatory sentence of 15 years, was read out. Her supporters refused to doubt their belief in her innocence, despite the fact that the jury, having saw and listened to all the evidence in detail, found her guilty. At the end of the day, despite the tragic death of Matthew Eappen her supporters in Cheshire (and many people throughout the U.K.) stood by their resolve that she had committed no crime. What gave these people such determined resolve in their faith in Louise? Why would they give up so much of their time and money to support her and her family? Perhaps it was the thought that a young girl, who many of them knew, could not be the perpetrator of a crime so terrible as the murder of a young child. Perhaps, at the depth of it, was the belief that human beings are basically good and that ‘normal people’ are incapable of such vicious crimes as murder.

This attitude is in stark contrast to that seen in the U.S. There Louise Woodward was labelled a murderer from the start. The parents of Matthew Eappen even appeared on public television whilst the jury were contemplating Louise’s fate declaring their emphatic belief that she had murdered their baby. What could bring a people to have such a total hatred of this young foreigner who had invaded their shores? Perhaps, after an event so tragic as the death of the child, someone has to blamed. Someone has to be responsible. But surely people are basically good? Surely ‘ordinary people’ are incapable of such offenses? Ah, but here we see it, Louise Woodward is no ‘ordinary person’. She is an outsider from across the ocean, an intruder, ripe for all the hatred and hostility of a people in shock at the tragic loss of one of their babies. Would they have been so hostile, I wonder, had the roles been reversed and an American girl had been arrested over here for the death of a British baby?

It seems that whenever a terrible crime has been committed the perpetrator is always labelled as being outside of ‘society’. Some reason is always presented for their aberrant behaviour. They were either beaten as a child or watched too many violent movies. Underlying all of this is the implicit assumption that people are basically good and that offenders are either different from everybody else or that some past event in their lives has turned them into the now non-human object of our disdain. It is always so much easier to believe that an outsider, a foreign visitor, is capable of such a crime than someone you are acquainted with, someone you know is ‘normal’.

An interesting question arrises from this analysis. Despite all the crime and violence that goes on in the world, why do people cling to a conviction that to be a human being is to be basically good? The English language supports this philosophy as much as society does. Just look up the word ‘humane’. In my dictionary it states: “having the feelings proper to man: kind, tender, merciful: benevolent”. But surely this is against all common sense? Just look at the pollution that mankind has created, look at all the species of animals that mankind has made extinct in his short tenure on our small planet! Are we all mad to hold such a pious view of the human condition? Perhaps. More likely it is the fact that we are unable to look face-to-face at ourselves and at our own condition. Perhaps it would be too painful to believe that convicted criminals are human beings just like the man in the street and, yes, just like you, gentle reader. To take such a view would be to admit to our own weaknesses and our own, ultimately fallen, nature.

So is it all black? Is the difference between those who committ some of the most heneous of crimes and ‘ordinary people’ only one of circumstance? Is it a misguided notion to believe in the goodness of humanity? At the end of the day, in the final analysis, are we all completely worthless? Perhaps not. As Christians we know that God loves us, that He does not consider us worthless at all. The Psalmist, pondering over this point, wrote:

… what is man, that thou art mindful of him.

Psalm 8:4

We may be sinful and capable of some of the most horrendous acts and crimes. Despite all of that God still loves us. This is one of the most important Christian messages, that Christ came to save a fallen humanity and bring it back into harmony with God. We may all be sinners but we are not beyond redemption.

So what of Louise Woodward? Is she purely an innocent victim of circumstance and xenophobia? A young girl, bewildered at how events could take such a cruel twist as the full weight of the American legal system fell on her, satisfying the wrath of a populace desparate to blame someone for the death of their child? Or is she really an evil murdress, somehow different from ‘normal people’ who needs to be locked up for the sake of a ‘good’ humanity? One thing is certain, when we view those who commit violent crime as ‘outside’ of humanity, as having to be fundamentally different from ‘normal’ human beings we are not facing up to the realities of ourselves.

Dave Spence

Last modified: 25th November 2005