The Act of Filicide. How offenders and motives differ from other murders

Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Chapter 1: The act of filicide
Who commits filicide?
Why commit filicide?
Victimology

Chapter 2: A Hidden Crime
The medicalisation of filicide
The moral dilemma
The route to ‘medicalisation’

Chapter 3: Acknowledging the act of filicide
Why is filicide unfamiliar in the criminological field?
The age range distinction
Maternal versus Paternal and surrogate parentage
Statistical data
Knowledge of filicide: A short survey
Methodology
Findings
Media portrayal

Chapter 4: Bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere
Acknowledgement of risk
Filicide versus ‘stranger danger’
What would be the Benefits?
What would be the negatives?

Conclusion

Bibliography

Abstract

The motivation for this dissertation developed from a realisation that the act of filicide has become relatively obscure within the criminological field. Yet, whilst reviewing the literature and statistical data it becomes increasingly apparent that acts of filicide inhabit a significant proportion of child murder statistics. Therefore, this dissertation aims to highlight the act of filicide and discuss whether or not bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere would benefit society. The definition of filicide is analysed and the problems that have emerged from this definition, such as the age of victims and the inclusion of stepparents, have been addressed. The act of filicide is followed throughout history and into the modern day with attention paid to the filicidal notions present in factual and fictional literature. The exploration of the filicidal act draws upon Dr Phillip Resnick’s categories of motive as it discusses who commits filicide and why. Once the act of filicide is firmly established, the lack of awareness of the term is explored. The modernisation of the criminal justice system and how it deals with filicide offences is discussed, which leads the discussion onto the apparent ‘medicalisation’ of filicide which is clearly evident today. Whilst exploring the ‘medicalisation’ of filicide, the cultural variations of perception are addressed with attention paid to the moral dilemma presented by cultures which have seemingly deemed filicide acceptable.

This leads to the discussion of why filicide is unfamiliar in the criminological field. The presence of filicide in the criminal justice system is discussed and the laws surrounding the act are analysed. By attempting to make the reader acknowledge the act of filicide as a homicide offence, attention is brought to the complexities of the definition and how these complexities also mirrored the problems encountered by parliament when implementing the 1938 Infanticide Act. Furthermore, recent statistical data is highlighted and used to prove that filicide is a prominent feature in homicide statistics. In addition, an independent short survey is undertaken which highlights the lack of awareness of the act of filicide within the criminological field, and recommends further independent research into filicide which could highlight the difference between filicide and other child murders. The discussion incorporates the media portrayal of filicide, and recent high-profile cases are used purposely, to allow the reader to view them as acts of filicide and assess how the motives for these murders affect the media's method of reporting. Finally, the main point is approached, as the dissertation discusses whether bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere would be beneficial for society. This is based on the theoretical notion that increasing the awareness of filicide within the criminological field would also increase society's knowledge of where the actual risk posed to children realistically lies. Fundamentally, the perceived benefit would be a reduction in fear of strangers, which in turn would allow children to experience a carefree childhood. On the other hand, the negative effects that this could have are not forgotten. The dissertation concludes that bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere could be beneficial, but clearly acknowledges that society would find the transition quite difficult.

Introduction

When an expression is completed by the term ‘cide' it can be assumed that the meaning involves the death of a person or persons in a way relevant to the word used. For instance ‘homicide' is a common word used to explain the ‘killing of a person by another' (Oxford Dictionary). In fact, there are numerous words in which the term ‘cide' inhabits the latter half. However, general knowledge or understanding of these words can become as obscure as the words themselves. Society tends to dictate which of these words ought to be implanted in the conscious mind, whilst others remain available only to those who seek their meaning. The historical mass murder of millions of people was aptly named by Raphael Lemkin as ‘genocide', which takes its meaning from a combination of the Greek term ‘genos', “meaning race or tribe”, and the Latin ‘cide', which means to kill (Jones, 2006:10). Throughout history, acts of Genocide have allowed the term to be become a fundamental part of common knowledge, be it by educational resources, news stories or movies surrounding the subject. Nonetheless, there are some terms less frequently acknowledged or understood by many that are less familiar than the term genocide; yet, equally significant.

Infanticide is one term which may be recognisable due to its familiar beginning ‘Infant'. The word, which is defined as the killing of a child under the age of twelve months by its biological mother, who is suffering from a mental disorder (Crown Prosecution Service), is used to some extent within society. It is visible in homicide statistics, legal documentation and literature. Therefore, the meaning may gather some acknowledgement. ‘Neonaticide’ on the other hand is far less common. It is a term coined by Phillip Resnick in 1969, and is used to describe the act of killing of a child within the first twenty four hours of life. This is not to say that these homicidal acts are not equally devastating, merely that they are less visible when it comes to the danger posed to society as a whole. A term which in some way overlaps both infanticide and neonaticide is ‘Filicide’. The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of filicide is that of ‘a person who kills their son or daughter’, and originates from the Latin ‘Filius’ meaning son, ‘Filia’ meaning daughter, and ‘Cide’ meaning “a person or substance that kills, or an act of killing” (Oxford Dictionary). Whilst acts of filicide play a significant part in history and modern day life, the term is less frequently acknowledged and used. This may be due to filicidal acts being placed in the same category as other child murders within homicide statistics. However, this does not clearly address the act committed. The fact that filicide is committed by the parent of the murdered child is paramount, and should not be confused with the children whom are killed by non - parental figures. Acts such as infanticide, neonaticide and filicide do happen frequently, ironically much more frequently than an act of genocide, yet the visibility of such an act is somewhat hindered by society’s ability to turn a blind eye to the things that affect individuals rather than groups. If an act is of no danger to society as a whole, then it may be a lesser threat than one that is. However, there could be a flaw in this theory. If society lacks knowledge of acts such as filicide, it could cause an unnecessary fear of certain crimes that are predominantly family based.

This dissertation will address the complex definition of filicide and assess the problems that can arise from these complexities. The age range of victims and the incorporation of stepparents will be discussed in reference to the difficulties that they can pose. Filicidal notions will be drawn from historical and modern literature in a bid to highlight the prevalence of the subject, whilst moving on to consider who commits filicide and the motives for such an act. The work of Resnick (1969) will be explored and acknowledged for providing a significant turning point in the study of filicide, and his development of motive categories will be discussed. Once the act of filicide has been firmly established, the hidden aspect of this crime will be explored. This will include the apparent ‘medicalisation’ of filicide and draw upon Wilczynski’s (1997) discussion of filicidal parents as being either ‘mad’ or ‘bad’. Additionally, the moral dilemma surrounding the filicidal act is also discussed, with attention drawn to cultural differences of opinion and the cultural pressures that somewhat condone the presence of filicide within certain cultures. This will be followed by a discussion of filicide’s route to ‘medicalisation’ and how the roots for this change may be embedded in the modernisation of criminal justice methods. This will lead to an acknowledgement of filicide as a criminal act and highlight the problems surrounding the Infanticide Acts of 1922 and 1938 that were raised by parliament. These problems mirror those that are found within the definition of filicide and include the problem with the age range and inclusion of stepparents. Recent homicide statistical data will be analysed and discussed in relation to their relevance and then explored further to highlight any problems that are visibly present when focus is placed solely on acts of filicide. At this point I will draw upon my own research, which was conducted in a bid to assess the knowledge level of filicide exhibited by students currently studying Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Leeds. The findings from this study will be analysed and conclusions will be drawn from the data received. The discussion will then be diverted to the media portrayal of filicide. Recent high profile cases will be explored in line with Resnick’s motive categories, which will allow for an insight into whether motive has an effect on the method of reporting. Finally, the notion of bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere will be addressed. The actual risks posed to children will be explored, subsequently leading to a comparison between filicide and murders that are committed by a stranger. However, bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere, and subsequently to the forefront of the public’s mind would undoubtedly have positive and negative consequences. Therefore, these will be addressed individually. Once concluded, this dissertation will argue that filicide as an act has fallen into obscurity. It will then propose that bringing filicide back into the criminological sphere would offer society a realistic perception of child murder and subsequently reduce ‘stranger danger’ fear to a level which would allow children to regain the carefree element of their childhood.

Chapter 1: The act of filicide

What is filicide?

Initially the meaning of filicide appears relatively simple. Yet, once the definition is explored it is apparent that it holds many complexities. In fact, the definition is rather confusing and for that reason it is worthwhile considering how these complexities can alter the way that an act of filicide is understood. While reviewing the literature on filicide it becomes clear that there is uncertainty as to what the exact definition is, and as a result, authors and researchers tend to adopt their own version. For instance, Flynn acknowledges that the age range of the child differs between studies and consequently the “age limit appears to be dictated by the sample itself” (2009:11). Defining an end age would understandably be difficult due to the fact that although a child becomes an adult in the eyes of society, they continue to be the parent's son or daughter. Therefore, the definition is open to interpretation. The early years, however, appear to be more problematic because of the incorporation of infanticide and neonaticide. Whilst these terms may be used independently, they only reflect the age of the child when it was killed (with exception given to infanticide, which harbours a stricter definition). For that reason, we have to appreciate that infanticide and neonaticide may also, by definition, be regarded as acts of filicide (West, 2007). Their presence does, however, raise the question as to why the age range distinction matters. This issue, therefore, will be addressed in the third chapter when the age of victims is discussed.

Bridgeman et al discuss how some studies only take account of biological parents, whilst others acknowledge the involvement of non-biological parental figures (2011:256). These can include ‘guardians and stepparents’ (West, 2007), or ‘parental surrogates’ (Morrall, 2000), as individuals capable of filicide. This does, in turn, raise the question of maternal-paternal bonding. Understandably, the stepparent or guardian take on the role of parent, but their connection to the child is substantially different to that of a mother who has carried and experienced childbirth, or a man who is biologically linked. Whilst an adult may enter the role of stepparent by marriage or partnership, parental responsibility for that child appears to be based on morality rather than legality. In fact, when examined further it is clear that the role harbours no legal obligations whatsoever, unless the adult in question chooses to apply to the courts to obtain parental responsibility (GOV.UK: 2013 a). Within England and Wales, parental responsibility is primarily given to the mother. The father, on the other hand, only gains parental responsibility if he was married to the mother at the time of birth and is named on the birth certificate (GOV.UK: 2013 b). The term ‘parental responsibility’ also has its expectations and if a stepparent were to apply to the courts and successfully access it, they would also be legally responsible for protecting, providing for, disciplining, educating and endorsing medical treatment for the child in question (GOV.UK: 2013 c). Therefore, although a stepparent may morally accept the role of parent, there is no legal obligation to care for the child in same manner as the biological parent. Irrespective of this stepparents do play a significant part in the raising of children, even more so in modern society in which divorce and remarriage is commonplace.

Filicidal acts have undoubtedly plagued society as far back as can be remembered. Whilst more recent cases can be seen in statistical data or media coverage, sources point out that filicidal notions were present within historical literature. One story for instance, which still has connotations linked to it today, is of Medea. Euripides’ ancient Greek tragedy, which dates back to 431 BC, focuses on a woman named Medea whom is in love with Jason. However, when Jason betrays Medea for another woman, she kills their two sons in an act of revenge (Leuzinger-Bohleber, 2001:329). It is the revenge killing of offspring within this story that prompted the birth of the ‘Medea Complex’. Stern describes the Medea Complex as a “situation in which the mother harbours death wishes to her offspring, usually as revenge against the father” (1948:330). Furthermore, the story of Medea is not the only one that embeds filicidal ideas into modern minds. West (2007) also touches upon the murderous notions within the popular fairytales Hansel and Gretel and Snow White. Both tales offer the notion of the ‘evil stepparent’ who wishes death upon the children. Whilst Hansel and Gretel are abandoned and seemingly left to starve to death, Snow White is sent to her death by her jealous step-mother.

It becomes apparent that filicidal notions inhabit a large proportion of modern day life, from the meanings drawn from ancient legends and the stories that parents may very well read their own offspring before bed. Consequently, one occurring theme within the literature is that the killing of one’s child is one of the worst crimes possible (see Morrall, 2006:54; Brookman, 2005:186). We may believe that the bond between parent and child is unbreakable, but there are circumstances in which a parent chooses, for a reason satisfactory for themselves, to remove the child from existence. It is not uncommon to hear parents repeat the phrase “I brought you into the world and I can take you out” (Healy and Link, 2012:145), which consequently, as Leehan states, leads to the realisation that the child's “welfare and [...] life were entirely dependant on the whim of a parent who had brought [them] into the world” (1993:25).

Who commits filicide?

Whilst the story of Medea is focused on the murderous actions of a woman, it is worth acknowledging that filicide as an act is not gender specific. It is reportedly perpetrated by men and women, or in this case, fathers and mothers. When a mother kills her own child it is described as maternal filicide and this particular type of filicide has been visited frequently in research studies. Paternal filicide, on the other hand, which is defined as the killing of a child by its father, has not attracted as much attention (Bourget et al, 2007:77). This is ironic given the historical capability a man had to kill his offspring legally. Under ancient Roman law, the ‘patriae potestas', or ‘Paternal Power' of the father over his family meant that he possessed the ‘right of life or death over them' (Grubbs, 2002:20). Furthermore, Daly and Wilson highlight the fact that under the same ancient Roman law “infanticide by the mother only constituted as an offence if it had been carried out against the wishes of the father” (1988:65-66). Consequently, it is worth considering whether society deemed the killing of a child by its father acceptable, yet if it is the mother who kills her child she must be acting against the societal norms that govern her role. If this is the case, then it would appear that the apparent role reversal of parental possession to the mother would be a positive move in the prevention of filicide. However, it could also offer the perception that the mother now holds the capability to determine the fate of the child, as the father once had.

Alternatively, the role of the stepparent has always been a controversial one. Daly and Wilson state that; “substitute parents are less likely than natural parents to experience the emotional rewards that make the costs of parenthood tolerable” (1988:83), therefore leaving them unable to express the same level of commitment as that of a biological parent. It is the idea that a stepparent’s intolerance for a child, that is not biologically linked, that may have been embedded in stories such as Snow White and Hansel and Gretel, which portray the stepparent as the epitome of evil. Nonetheless, if the stepparent were to kill a child that they had morally or legally taken parental responsibility for, then the act would be classed as filicide. This idea can lead to confusion about why filicide was coined as a term to differentiate the act from other child murders. Seemingly, the biological and emotional link to the child was a major aspect, as was the ability to kill a product of the self. Yet the adoption of the stepparent within the definition makes it much broader. What has to be assumed is that a stepparent, in the eyes of society, retains the same level of responsibility for the safety of the child as a natural parent does.

Why commit filicide?

When reviewing the literature it becomes clear that Dr Phillip Resnick played a significant role in categorising the motives for committing filicide. Resnick undertook a study of 131 cases of filicide and subsequently published his journal article ‘Child murder by parents: a psychiatric review of filicide’ in 1969. This study enabled Resnick to outline five categories that would aid understanding of why a parent would choose to kill their offspring.

The five categories are as follows:

‘Altruistic’ filicide: this is where the parent commits filicide “because it is perceived to be in the best interest of the child” (West, 2007). Resnick claims that there are two elements to altruistic filicide. The first being filicide that is associated with suicide, in which the parent “could not abandon their children when they killed themselves”; the other being killing their child to relieve their suffering, whether it is genuine or imagined (1969:329). Both elements, however, are described by Resnick to be murders seemingly “committed out of love” (1969:329).

‘Acutely psychotic’ filicide: This is categorised as an act in which a parent irrationally kills their child during an episode of psychosis. Resnick states that these parents kill whilst “under the influence of hallucinations, epilepsy or delirium” and “contains those cases in which no comprehensible motive could be ascertained” (Resnick, 169:329).

‘Unwanted child’ filicide: This can include instances where the child is disposed of because its presence causes a hindrance to the parent. West (2007) also stated that “parents who benefit from the death of the child in some way” are included in this category.

‘Accidental’ filicide: Resnick states that these cases are “usually the result of battered child syndrome” and come under the accidental category because “homicidal intent is lacking” (Resnick, 1969:330). West (2007) also adds that this category includes the deaths that occur due to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. The NHS describes Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy as “a rare form of child abuse [which] occurs when someone who is caring for a child, usually the child's biological mother, fakes or deliberately causes symptoms of illness in the child”. However, they prefer to describe this as ‘fabricated or induced illness' (FII) as they believe that this places the focus on the victim rather than on the abuser (NHS, 2012).

‘ Spouse Revenge' filicide: as described earlier in the story of Medea. This is where the parent kills the child in an attempt to make the other biological parent suffer (Resnick, 1969: 330).

The categorisation of these motives for filicide also enables the exploration into whom or what fits most commonly into each category. Whilst altruistic, spouse revenge and accidental filicide is seemingly dependant on individual circumstance, the act of acutely psychotic filicide is limited to those experiencing psychotic episodes. Unwanted child syndrome can also be explored within the context of individual circumstance, for instance, when considering the story of Snow White, it becomes clear that the stepmother attempted to dispose of her because she was jealous of her beauty. Consequently, the reasons for the removal of unwanted children could be attributed to the rejection of existing children when a new relationship is formed. Alternatively, it may also be attributed to illegitimacy or financial burden. When viewed more broadly, it becomes apparent that there are also societal and cultural pressures that could encourage filicidal acts. Parts of Asia for instance, seemingly adopt “a culture of son preference” (Flynn, 2009:13), mainly due to the financial burden a female can impose. The BBC ethics guide states that although “infanticide does occur in the West [it is] usually as isolated family tragedies with no underlying pattern or gender bias” (BBC, 2013). India, however, sees an increased presence of female infanticide, which can be attributed to the payment of a dowry upon marriage which is deemed a financial burden on families (Morrall, 2006:56). Bhatnagar et al (2005) explains how there are not only numerous gender selective deaths of female foetuses, but also deaths of female children. The murder of female children is described by Bhatnagar et al as “murder by negligence through discriminatory practices such as uneven food allocation causing nutritional deficiencies, uneven access to medical care, family resources, and minimum survival needs” (2005:3). China also exhibits a preference for male children, which became evermore apparent after the introduction of the One Child Policy in 1979 (Hesketh and Xing, 2005). The Country’s attempt to stabilise the growing population in effect increased the gender selective impulses of parents. Furthermore, the Chinese also harboured the fear of producing a child without the approval of the government, which could result in them being fined. As a result, Hesketh and Xing (2005) state that “[a]lthough infanticide of girls is probably very rare now, less aggressive treatment of sick female infants is known to occur”. Filicide is, in this context, a response to cultural pressure and although it is wrong to kill a child, it has been known to be accepted under certain circumstances (Flynn, 2009:14)

Victimology

The uncertainty of the definition of filicide makes the exact victimology difficult to ascertain. It is clear that the victim can be the child of either a biological or non-biological parental figure. There is also no gender specification. The main problem arises when considering the age of the victim when killed. The inclusion of neonaticide and infanticide focuses on the child in infancy, even though filicide as a whole has no definite end age. Resnick’s study, for instance, incorporated cases of filicide in which the victim’s ages ranged between a few days to 20 years old. Alternatively, Flynn describes how certain samples only incorporate children up to the age of 13 (2009:10-11). Nonetheless, even though the age is undefined, the risk seemingly decreases as the child matures (Flynn, 2009:25), and as a result, the focus is drawn to those who are deemed more at risk. Smith et al note that “[p]revious analysis of Homicide Index figures has consistently shown that children under the age of one are the age group most at risk of homicide” (2012:23). Alder and Polk also point out that “homicide rates tend to decline after the age of 5, and argue that this is a reflection of the children's removal from parents as a source of violence” (1996:398). This would include spending the majority of the day away from parents at school for instance. Seemingly the infant child is predominantly dependant on the care of the parental figure, yet, once they reach school age their independence develops and therefore relieves some of the stress of parenting. Consequently, older children who do become victims of filicide are “more likely to be defective” (Resnick, 1969:327). The term defective is taken to mean a child suffering from a physical or mental disability that would require the same level of care as a child in infancy.

Chapter 2: A Hidden Crime

The medicalisation of filicide

When an act of filicide is committed it is of paramount importance to establish the motive for the offence, and this appears to have a common outcome in many literary articles about filicidal acts. It is noticeable that a majority of parents (especially mothers) who kill their children are subsequently assessed for any underlying psychological factors. An act of ‘acutely psychotic' filicide would be prompted by the perpetrator suffering from an episode of psychosis, and psychiatric treatment would be necessary. The cases of ‘altruistic' filicide that resulted in the parent's suicide could also assume some period of mental instability. However, as Morrall claims, the killing of ones child could be deemed one of the worst crimes possible (2006:54), therefore, it is understandable that society would like to believe these individuals are ‘mad' (mentally disturbed) rather than ‘bad' (morally blameworthy and reprehensible) (Wilczynski, 1997:424). Furthermore, as previously noted, the majority of studies into filicide are focused on maternal filicide, which could offer some explanation into why the literature on filicide is widely held in medical or psychological fields.

The focus on maternal filicide highlights the possibility that criminological theories relating to the treatment of women within the criminal justice system could clarify why the majority of research lies within the medical field. There has long been discussion surrounding the supposed lenient treatment of women within the criminal justice system. Hale et al suggest that the “organizational structures of criminal justice are highly ‘gendered'. That is, practices and procedures are patterned by distinguishing between male and females” (2009:398). Therefore, it is argued that the criminal justice system remains in a state, which is described by the ‘chivalry hypothesis’ as a system that treats women leniently “simply because they are women” (Hale et al, 2009:398). Nonetheless, Wilczynski points out that “chivalrous treatment always presents a 'double-edged' sword” (1997:426). This is evident when considering the counter allegation made that women are in fact treated more harshly by a system which somewhat expects criminal behaviour from men, yet sees the offending woman as ‘doubly deviant’. The ‘double deviance’ theory claims that the criminal activity of females is interpreted differently than it would be if committed by a man (Hale et al, 2009:392). For instance, women are not only punished for the offence committed, but also for breaching their ‘sex role expectations’ (Hale et al, 2009:398). Therefore, if a woman conforms to the gender stereotype she is likely to be treated sympathetically. Subsequently, Wilczynski highlights that;

“Concern over the ['medicalisation'] of female filicide has centred on its broader political implications for the perception and treatment of women generally. [Nonetheless] this portrayal avoids the social causes of female violence, and denies the rationality and agency of the offender” (1997:425)

Yet, if one considers Wilczynski’s account of women offenders, it would appear that the majority of filicidal acts committed by women are ‘altruistic’ or ‘acutely psychotic’ in nature (1997:427-428). Therefore, it could be assumed that the majority of women are treated as though rationality was lacking or ill informed.

Brown goes as far to say that “women are not real criminals because they are not perceived, as men are, to be serious and intentional in their acts” (1990:47).

Alternatively, it is possible to argue that the ‘altruistic’ and ‘acutely psychotic' motives generally expressed by women are deserving of psychiatric intervention. Wilczynski claims that “the typical categories of female motivation are those which tend to be regarded as less morally reprehensible than those categories in which men predominate” (1997:428); a notion that has also been discussed within the literature. Additionally, this differentiation of motives between genders also offers an insight into the methods used to kill. For example, mothers tend to use suffocation and drowning, whereas fathers have been described as showing more aggression in their chosen method, for instance, stabbing or beating the child to death (Resnick, 1969:328). Consequently, this could also result in differential treatment in the aftermath of the filicidal act, if the homicidal method is considered. If male parents generally use more violent methods or express higher levels of aggression, then it is understandable that they are more likely to be given a custodial punishment for the crime committed. Therefore, in comparison women are more likely to receive “psychiatric disposals such as hospital orders or non-custodial supervisory sentences such as probation orders” (Wilczynski, 1997:422).

Morrall highlighted that during the 1800s infanticide in Britain “appeared to be reaching epidemic proportions” (2006:56), which was seemingly attributed to poverty and illegitimacy. Daly and Wilson also discuss how the industrial revolution “increased the incentives to infanticide” because of work commitments and isolation from the family (1988:67). However, a BBC news article goes further by stating that the epidemic was somewhat blamed on the presence of "puerperal insanity" (BBC News, 2003). Marland states that Puerperal insanity is a “recognisable condition, triggered by the specific event of childbirth and its aftermath”, yet subsequently notes the broader concerns including “the strains of poverty, physical exhaustion, malnourishment, the hardships of rearing children often born in rapid succession, and overly-long periods of breast-feeding” (Marland, 2003). It would appear that the killing of infants became such a regular occurrence that “By the 1860's, London newspapers were reporting up to five dead babies found in city parks in a single day” (Daly and Wilson, 1988:67). Nonetheless, the medicalisation of the filicidal act was clearly as evident then as it is today.

The moral dilemma

The Society for the Prevention of Infanticide quotes Laila Williamson, an anthropologist who undertook research into infanticide, as saying; “Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule”. (The Society for the Prevention of Infanticide, 1998)

[...]