Hubbry Logo
NeonaticideNeonaticideMain
Open search
Neonaticide
Community hub
Neonaticide
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Neonaticide
Neonaticide
Neonaticide
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
For practices of killing infants after 24 hours of a child's birth, but under the age of 12 months, see infanticide. For the killing of older children by a parent, see filicide.
Part of a series on
Homicide
Murder

Note: Varies by jurisdiction

Manslaughter
Non-criminal homicide

Note: Varies by jurisdiction

Family
Other

Neonaticide is the deliberate act of a parent murdering their own child during the first 24 hours of life.[1][2] As a noun, the word "neonaticide" may also refer to anyone who practices or who has practiced this.

Neonaticide is relatively rare in developed countries, but most of these murders remain secret:

"...every year, hundreds of women commit neonaticide: they kill their newborns or let them die. Most neonaticides remain undiscovered, but every once in a while a janitor follows a trail of blood to a tiny body in a trash bin, or a woman faints and doctors find the remains of a placenta inside her."

— Steven Pinker, The New York Times, 1997[3]

Neonaticide is considerably more commonly committed by mothers than fathers; infanticide is also more likely to be committed by mothers than fathers. A 1999 United States Department of Justice study concluded that between 1976 and 1997 in the United States, mothers were responsible for a higher share of children killed during infancy, while fathers were more likely to have been responsible for the murders of children age eight or older.[4]

Statistics

[edit]

90% of neonaticidal mothers are 25 years of age or younger. Less than 20% are married. Less than 30% are seen as psychotic or depressed.[5][6][7] They have typically denied or concealed the pregnancy since conception.[8][1]

45% of all child murders occur in the first 24 hours of life, and thus can be classified as neonaticide.[9] For the period 1982–1987, approximately 1.1% of all homicides have been of children under one year of age. 8–9% of all murders are of persons under 18 years of age. Of these, almost twice as many sons as compared to daughters are victims.[5] In half of the cases death occurs literally "at the hands of" the parent. Weapons are almost never used in neonaticide. Drowning, strangulation, head trauma, suffocation, and exposure to the elements are all common methods.[5]

Current law

[edit]

Poland

[edit]

Article 149 of the Penal Code of Poland stipulates that a mother who kills her child in labour, while under the influence of the course of the delivery, is liable to imprisonment for between three months and five years.[10]

Romania

[edit]

The new Penal Code of Romania, which came into force in 2014, resolved the issues of the previous Code, under which the law was unclear. Article 200 of the new Penal Code stipulates that the killing of a newborn during the first 24 hours, by the mother who is in a state of mental distress, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years.[11]

Russia

[edit]

Article 106 of the Criminal Code of Russia stipulates that the killing by a mother of her newborn child during or immediately after childbirth, or in a mentally traumatizing situation or in a state of mental disorder that does not reach insanity is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of two to four years or by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.[12][13]

United States

[edit]

In the U.S., the killing of a child after childbirth is illegal. Under the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, a woman who gives childbirth after an attempted abortion is the mother of a born-alive infant if the infant is observed with any of the following signs of life: breathing, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or confirmed voluntary muscle movement, regardless of the gestational age of the child. Although medical guidelines recommend withholding resuscitation for infants with practically no chance of surviving, and allow parental discretion if the chance of survival is marginal, any child that has a better-than-marginal chance of survival who is allowed to die would be considered the victim of infanticide or neonaticide.[14][15]

History

[edit]

An early reference to filicide (the killing of a child by a parent) is in Greek mythology. In his play Medea, Euripides portrayed Medea as having killed her two sons after Jason abandoned her for the daughter of the King of Corinth[16] giving us what has been termed the Medea Complex.[17] Under the Roman Law, patria potestas, the right of a father to kill his own children was protected.[18][19] It was not until the 4th century that the Roman state, influenced by Christianity, began to regard filicide as a crime. Still, mothers who killed their infants or newborns received lesser sentences under both the laws of the church and the state.[20][21]

The church consistently dealt more leniently with those mothers whose children died by overlaying, an accidental death by smothering when a sleeping parent rolled over on the infant. The opinions of the church in these deaths may reflect an awareness of one of society's first attempts to understand the severe problem of overpopulation and overcrowding.[22] England has traditionally viewed infanticide as a "special crime," passing its first Infanticide Act in 1623 under the Stuarts and more recently in the Infanticide Acts of 1922 and 1938.[23][24] Most recently England passed the Infanticide Act of 1978 which allows a lesser sentence for attempted infanticide.[25] Unlike England and other European countries, the United States has not adopted special statutes to deal with infanticide or neonaticide. Nonetheless, juries and judges, as reflected in their verdicts and sentences, have consistently considered the difficulties and stresses of a mother during the post-partum period.[26]

Modern times

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

In June 2016 it was reported that 27 babies were born in Queensland hospitals in 2015, only to later die after not receiving care.[27] This was also reported to be happening as early as 2007 in Victoria, where 52 babies were born alive after failed late-term abortions[28] with accusations that some were "simply put on a shelf and left to die."[29] This is generally accepted as fitting the definition of infanticide in Victoria[30] and other states.

Cultural aspects

[edit]
A roadside sign in rural Sichuan: "It is forbidden to discriminate against, abuse or abandon baby girls."

The Chinese, as late as the 20th century, killed newborn daughters because they were unable to transmit the family name. Additionally, daughters were viewed as weaker and not as useful in time of war or for agricultural work. In the past, Inuit killed infants with known congenital anomalies and often one of a set of twins.[31] Similarly, Mohave Indians had killed all children of racially mixed ancestry at birth.[32]

In their 1981 paper, Sakuta and Saito[33] reviewed infanticide in Japan and describe the two distinct types of infanticide commonly seen. The Mabiki type corresponds to the ancient means of "thinning out" or population control; the Anomie type, a product of modern society, corresponds to the "unwanted child."

Prevention

[edit]

A number of studies have evaluated risk factors in infant homicide with the aim of preventing it.[1]

Anonymous delivery, a system where mothers can give birth in a hospital for free without showing ID, has been found to reduce the rate of police reported neonaticides in Austria.[34]

Baby hatch

[edit]

In the Middle Ages and in the 18th and 19th centuries, a "foundling wheel" system was used where mothers could leave them anonymously to be found and cared for. In modern times, baby hatch systems have been introduced in hospitals and other areas to allow mothers to leave children.[35][36]

The hatches are usually in hospitals, social centres, or churches, and consist of a door or flap in an outside wall which opens onto a soft bed, heated or at least insulated. Sensors in the bed alert carers when a baby has been put in it so that they can come and take care of the child. In Germany, babies are first looked after for eight weeks during which the mother can return and claim her child without any legal repercussions. If this does not happen, after eight weeks the child is put up for adoption.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Neonaticide

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Neonaticide is the deliberate of a newborn within the first 24 hours of life, most commonly committed by the biological acting alone. This act is distinct from broader , which encompasses the killing of children up to one year of age and is more frequently linked to mental disorders such as or , whereas neonaticide perpetrators often exhibit no prior and act in response to acute situational stressors like concealed pregnancies or immediate postpartum panic. is low but underreported due to undetected births and concealed bodies, with systematic reviews estimating global rates from 0.07 to 8.5 per 100,000 live births in studied regions, primarily and . Offenders are typically young, unmarried women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds facing unwanted pregnancies, with risk factors including , absence of , and rather than chronic . Neonaticide raises ongoing debates in and law regarding perpetrator intent, cultural influences on concealment, and preventive measures like expanded safe surrender laws, though empirical data underscore its rarity relative to other filicides while highlighting persistent challenges in detection and intervention.

Definition and Classification

Core Definition and Criteria

Neonaticide constitutes the intentional killing of a newborn within the first 24 hours of life, perpetrated almost exclusively by the biological mother. This definition excludes deaths resulting from , accidental injury, or natural perinatal causes, requiring forensic confirmation of live birth—typically via pulmonary flotation tests or histological evidence of air in the lungs—and a deliberate act causing death. Common methods include suffocation, , exposure to cold, or , often occurring immediately post-delivery in concealed settings. Classification as neonaticide hinges on empirical criteria: the victim's age (strictly 0–24 hours postpartum), maternal perpetration, and absence of external involvement, differentiating it from broader or categories that encompass older s or non-maternal actors. Key indicators frequently observed in medical and forensic records include maternal denial or concealment of , lack of , and solitary disposal of the body, such as or abandonment, without prior bonding or external support seeking. These features underscore neonaticide's status as a rare subset of , verifiable through vital records and data linking it to immediate postpartum circumstances rather than chronic abuse or external motives.

Distinctions from Infanticide and Filicide

Neonaticide is defined as the deliberate of a newborn within the first 24 hours of life, most commonly perpetrated by the biological in the context of a concealed and birth, often driven by acute , dissociation, or rather than premeditated malice. This temporal precision distinguishes it from broader categories, as the absence of postnatal bonding or caregiving differentiates neonaticidal acts from those involving established infant-parent relationships. Forensic psychiatric frameworks emphasize this early timeframe to highlight causal factors like physiological exhaustion and psychological disorientation immediately postpartum, rather than prolonged relational dynamics. Infanticide, by contrast, typically refers to the killing of an under one year of age, which may include neonaticide but more often pertains to post-neonatal deaths following some degree of maternal care or exposure to the child. Psychologically, infanticidal acts are frequently linked to conditions such as or , where distorted perceptions of the infant's needs emerge after initial bonding attempts, differing from neonaticide's characteristic lack of such attachment or awareness. Legally, some jurisdictions recognize as a mitigated offense attributable to mental disturbances induced by , underscoring the role of hormonal and psychological disruptions over the denial mechanisms predominant in neonaticide. Filicide encompasses the parental killing of a child at any developmental stage, from infancy through or beyond, and includes and as subtypes but extends to cases with diverse etiologies such as altruistic motives (e.g., perceived mercy killing), retaliatory spite, or acute psychotic episodes unrelated to parturition. Unlike neonaticide's confinement to the immediate peripartum period and hidden , filicide often involves recognized parent-child bonds, chronic stressors, or external pressures, with perpetrators exhibiting a wider range of psychiatric profiles including disorders or . These distinctions in timing, relational context, and motivational underpinnings aid in diagnostic classification within , preventing conflation that could obscure targeted prevention or intervention strategies.

Epidemiology

Global and Regional Statistics

Neonaticide rates are challenging to quantify globally due to significant underreporting and inconsistent definitions across studies, with most data derived from high-income countries in . A of 31 studies primarily from reported incidence rates ranging from 0.07 per 100,000 births in (1980–2000) to 8.5 per 100,000 births in (1975–2001), highlighting variability influenced by detection methods and legal reporting. No comprehensive worldwide estimates exist from organizations like the WHO, as neonaticide is often subsumed under broader neonatal or homicide categories, but empirical data indicate it constitutes a small fraction of overall homicides, estimated at 1–2% in some analyses when adjusted for age-specific risks. In the United States, neonaticide rates from National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) linked birth- death data for 2008–2017 averaged 74.0 per 100,000 person-years for deaths on the day of birth, compared to an overall rate of 7.2 per 100,000 person-years, demonstrating neonaticide's disproportionate concentration in the first day of life. This equates to approximately 250–300 cases annually, given annual U.S. live births exceeding 3.7 million during the period, though exact counts vary by year and detection. Neonaticide rates in the U.S. are 2–3 times higher than for older when accounting for exposure time, underscoring elevated vulnerability immediately post-birth. Underreporting exacerbates these figures, with concealment estimated in about 50% of neonaticide cases globally, often through disposal of remains without medical or legal notification, leading to true incidence potentially 2–10 times official counts in some jurisdictions. In regions like , over 90% of neonaticides may go undetected or unregistered, per forensic and vital records analyses. Regional trends show slight declines in developed nations post-2000, coinciding with implementations like U.S. safe haven laws (enacted starting 1999), where neonaticide rates dropped approximately 67% from pre-1999 levels (e.g., from higher baselines in 1988–1998 to 74.0 per 100,000 by 2008–2017). However, persistence remains evident in low-resource areas, with rising incidences reported in contexts like , where feticide and neonaticide have increased amid socioeconomic pressures, contrasting stabilized or declining patterns in and .

Demographic and Temporal Patterns

Neonaticide perpetrators are overwhelmingly biological mothers, with fathers rarely involved due to the circumstances of birth and immediate postpartum killing. In the United States, analysis of day-of-birth infant homicides from 2008–2017 shows that 65.2% of maternal perpetrators were aged 20–29 years, 19.8% under 20 years, and only 14.9% aged 30 years or older, with rates declining with maternal age (18.7 per 100,000 person-years for those under 20 versus 2.6 for those 30 and older). Three-quarters (75.0%) were unmarried, with unmarried status linked to a homicide rate 4.5 times higher than among married mothers (13.4 versus 3.0 per 100,000 person-years). Lower educational attainment correlates with elevated risk, as mothers without a high school diploma accounted for 24.5% of cases (rate 12.2 per 100,000 person-years), compared to 1.3% for those with graduate degrees (rate 1.0). These patterns align with broader empirical data indicating predominance among first-time or young primiparous mothers from lower socioeconomic strata, though subsequent births among adolescents under 20 carry particularly high relative risk (10.9-fold increase). Temporal distributions reveal limited but notable patterns in forensic and epidemiological records. , including neonaticide subsets, exhibits seasonal peaks in winter months, as documented in U.S. studies analyzing data, potentially reflecting concealment opportunities or environmental factors influencing detection. Post-holiday periods show elevated forensic case clusters in some datasets, though neonaticide's rarity constrains robust monthly or seasonal modeling. Regional variations highlight disparities in incidence and concealment. Neonaticide rates differ markedly across , ranging from 0.07 per 100,000 births in (1980–2000) to 8.5 in (1975–2001), with higher concealment observed in jurisdictions lacking anonymous delivery options. In the U.S., detection appears more frequent due to prosecutorial emphasis and safe haven laws, contrasting with some European contexts where anonymous birth provisions correlate with underreporting or alternative abandonment patterns. Rural areas exhibit higher relative incidence than urban in certain regions, tied to isolation facilitating concealment, as evidenced by child homicide studies showing distinct rural perpetrator-victim dynamics (e.g., fewer neonates killed rurally). Overall, global undercounting persists, with neonaticide comprising up to 50% concealed cases in forensic reviews.

Etiology

Biological and Evolutionary Factors

From an evolutionary perspective, neonaticide aligns with parental theory, which posits that parents evolved psychological mechanisms to allocate finite resources—such as time, energy, and calories—preferentially to offspring with high expected reproductive value, potentially terminating in those with low fitness prospects to enhance overall lifetime . In resource-constrained ancestral environments, cues like deformities, prematurity, or maternal and poor signaled poor viability, prompting withholding of care; empirical data link neonaticide to perinatal risk factors including (under 2500 grams in 40-50% of cases) and congenital anomalies, consistent with discriminant strategies observed in historical and records. Biological mechanisms underlying these decisions involve postpartum neuroendocrinological shifts that modulate maternal and bonding. Delivery triggers abrupt declines in progesterone and (to pre-pregnancy levels within days), alongside and oxytocin surges that normally suppress and promote attachment; however, genetic variations influencing hormone receptor sensitivity or metabolism can disrupt this, elevating risk in 1-4% of severe cases, where affected mothers exhibit impaired empathy and heightened stress responses. Twin studies estimate heritability of puerperal psychoses at 40-60%, implicating loci like those regulating serotonin and , which interact with stress to lower thresholds for extreme behaviors. Links to cryptic pregnancies—unrecognized gestations in up to 1 in 475 cases, often culminating in —highlight parent-offspring conflict, where fetal (e.g., via IGF2 genes promoting growth) may override maternal signals of unviability, forcing resource diversion; evolutionarily, maternal denial or termination restores mobility and energy for future reproduction, as modeled in non-human primates where similar conflicts yield rates of 10-30% in high-competition groups. Animal models reinforce these human parallels: in mice, exhibits genetic polymorphism across strains, with testosterone and mediating male aggression toward pups, while progesterone analogs inhibit it in females; experiments show heritable infanticide thresholds rising under resource stress, mirroring human patterns where 70-90% of neonaticides occur in concealed births amid socioeconomic deprivation.

Psychological Contributors

A significant psychological mechanism in many neonaticide cases is , where the perpetrator fails to acknowledge the despite physical evidence, often leading to secretive behaviors and culminating in the act during or immediately after birth. This denial is not merely passive but involves active psychological avoidance, with studies indicating its presence in a substantial proportion of documented cases, though exact prevalence varies; for instance, systematic reviews of case reports highlight it as a recurring pattern alongside dissociation. Forensic evaluations frequently reveal premeditated elements in concealing the , such as avoiding medical care or hiding physical changes, underscoring deliberate agency rather than complete dissociation from reality. Dissociation during labor and delivery represents another acute response, characterized by emotional numbing, depersonalization, or ego disorganization that impairs with the newborn and facilitates the lethal act, often described as a panic-driven response to the immediate of birth rather than long-term . In forensic assessments of offenders, this state is distinguished from premeditated of the killing itself, with of impulsive action post-delivery, yet perpetrators typically regain shortly after, complicating claims of total mental incapacity. Comprehensive reviews emphasize that such episodes do not equate to excusing the behavior, as they occur in contexts of prior avoidable decisions, like isolation and non-disclosure. Postpartum psychosis, while a severe condition conferring elevated risk for (approximately 4% of cases among affected mothers), plays a limited role in neonaticide specifically, given its typical onset days after delivery rather than within the first 24 hours. Clinical data from case series indicate it accounts for only a minority of neonaticides, often linked to pre-existing vulnerabilities but not as a primary driver in most instances. Longitudinal analyses, including 40-year reviews of research literature, consistently find that 70-80% of neonaticide perpetrators exhibit no history of prior to the act, challenging narratives of inherent and highlighting situational stressors triggering maladaptive responses in otherwise functional individuals. This absence of premorbid disorder in the majority underscores personal accountability, as psychological contributors like acute stress or do not universally impair volition but reflect failures in adaptive amid self-imposed secrecy.

Social and Environmental Influences

Social pressures surrounding unwanted pregnancies, often resulting from casual sexual encounters or inadequate contraception, contribute to neonaticide risk by fostering and . Studies indicate that a significant proportion of neonaticide perpetrators experience unintended pregnancies, with data from U.S. cases between 2008 and 2017 showing that preventing such pregnancies could reduce incidents, as many involve young, unmarried women concealing births to avoid familial or communal repercussions. stigma, particularly against illegitimate births, has historically driven neonaticide, with analyses identifying it as a primary motive among unmarried women who view the infant as an unwanted burden. This is amplified in environments where is socially or legally restricted, such as rural areas, where neonaticide rates correlate with lower acceptability of termination. Environmental stressors like , low , and unstable home conditions show empirical correlations with neonaticide, though direct causal links remain unestablished. Perinatal highlights associations with low , young maternal age at first birth, and unhygienic or resource-scarce settings, yet no comprehensive studies confirm as a direct predictor of infant homicide, underscoring that socioeconomic hardship alone does not precipitate the act. Abusive relationships and lack of further elevate risk, with case reviews noting complex circumstances involving and isolation in perpetrator profiles, but comparative data reveal that not all women in abusive or impoverished homes resort to neonaticide, indicating individual agency over deterministic environmental blame. These influences interact with other risks, such as exacerbating pregnancy denial, where unawareness in the family environment hinders external intervention. Empirical patterns from cross-national studies, including those in , link lack of prenatal awareness in social circles to higher neonaticide likelihood, yet underscore variability: while stressors like stigma amplify vulnerability, the rarity of the act—even among high-risk groups—counters narratives overattributing outcomes to systemic factors without accounting for volitional elements.

Perpetrator Characteristics

Profiles of Offenders

Neonaticide perpetrators are overwhelmingly , with studies indicating that mothers commit more than 95% of cases, as rarely engage in the act during the first 24 hours of life and are more commonly associated with abandonment or homicides of older infants. Male involvement typically manifests indirectly, such as through non-perpetration in abandonment scenarios where the encourages disposal of the newborn without direct killing. Demographic patterns reveal that offenders are predominantly adolescent or females, often aged 15–25, unmarried, and from lower socioeconomic strata, with many concealing their pregnancies through secretive behaviors to avoid detection by or social networks. These women frequently exhibit , lacking close support systems, which facilitates the isolation required for the act but distinguishes them from broader profiles. Investigations highlight patterns of premeditated secrecy, such as denying symptoms or giving birth alone, aiding predictive identification in high-risk scenarios without implying universal traits. Long-term follow-up data indicate low among neonaticide offenders, with repeat offenses occurring in fewer than 15% of tracked cases and lacking the risk factors—such as chronic or disorders—associated with higher reoffending in other homicides. Offender interviews consistently report intense post-act guilt and , often emerging shortly after the event and persisting, which correlates with psychological distress but not elevated future risk.

Associated Phenomena like Pregnancy Denial

Pregnancy denial, a where a remains unaware or refuses to acknowledge her despite evident physical changes, frequently precedes neonaticide by facilitating unassisted and concealed births. The incidence of pregnancy denial is estimated at approximately 1 in 475 to 1 in 500 pregnancies worldwide, though exact figures vary due to underreporting and diagnostic challenges. Forensic analyses indicate that shares risk factors with neonaticide, such as and lack of , positioning it as a potential precursor rather than a deterministic cause. Manifestations of pregnancy denial encompass both psychological and somatic elements, including failure to perceive fetal movements, absence of weight gain awareness, and continued amenorrhea or irregular menses mimicking non-pregnant states. These can culminate in precipitous, unattended deliveries, heightening risks of neonatal harm or immediate post-birth disposal. Key risk factors include younger maternal age—particularly adolescents—first-time pregnancies, low socioeconomic support, and histories of trauma or psychiatric conditions, which impair recognition and seeking of medical intervention. Detection of denial-linked neonaticide poses significant forensic hurdles, as perpetrators often exhibit no prior behavioral indicators, and bodies may remain undiscovered for years. Advances in , leveraging public DNA databases to trace maternal lineage from remains, have enabled resolutions in longstanding cases as of 2025, revealing patterns of through retrospective analysis of family histories and data. Such methods underscore how obscures culpability until genetic evidence bridges temporal gaps, though ethical concerns persist regarding in familial matching.

Variations Across Jurisdictions

Neonaticide is universally classified as a form of in most jurisdictions, yet legal frameworks diverge significantly in charging standards, available defenses, and sentencing, often reflecting differing emphases on maternal psychological disturbance post-partum. In the , the Infanticide Act 1938 permits a charge of —treated as rather than —for a mother who wilfully causes the death of her child under 12 months if her mind was disturbed by the effects of giving birth or , encompassing neonaticide cases. This provision aims to account for transient mental imbalance without requiring proof of , resulting in more lenient outcomes compared to standard prosecutions. In contrast, the lacks a federal statute, prosecuting neonaticide under general state laws, typically as first- or second-degree , with sentences ranging from to depending on and circumstances. This approach yields inconsistent verdicts, as defenses like must meet stringent criteria under varying state insanity or diminished capacity rules, often leading to harsher penalties than in jurisdictions with tailored laws. Russia's Article 106 specifically addresses the of a newborn by its during or immediately after birth, recognizing the influence of her psychophysiological state, which can mitigate penalties but still classifies it as intentional with potential imprisonment up to five years. European Union countries exhibit leniency through psychological defenses in some cases, with nations like and incorporating postpartum mental disorders into sentencing guidelines, often resulting in psychiatric treatment over long incarceration. In post-communist , Penal Code Article 149 provides for reduced punishment if the mother kills during labor or under the immediate influence of its postpartum effects, reflecting a mitigation similar to acts elsewhere but tied to acute physiological factors. , emerging from communist-era policies that restricted abortions and incentivized births, has seen legal reforms emphasizing , though neonaticide remains prosecutable as with defenses for , amid persistent underreporting linked to stigma. Empirical data indicate that jurisdictions offering anonymous infant surrender options correlate with reduced reported neonaticide rates, as seen in where police-recorded cases fell 57% to 3.1 per 100,000 births following the 2001 anonymous delivery law, potentially deterring secretive killings by providing alternatives. U.S. Safe Haven laws, enacted variably by state since 1999, have been associated with a 66.7% decline in day-of-birth homicides from 222.2 to 74.0 per 100,000 person-years between 1989–1998 and 2008–2017, though many incidents involve infants exceeding surrender age limits, and causation remains debated due to factors like improved reporting. Underreporting persists globally, complicating deterrence assessments, as hidden cases undermine regardless of legal stringency.

Defenses, Prosecutions, and Outcomes

In neonaticide prosecutions, the insanity defense is invoked infrequently and succeeds in fewer than 10% of cases, with broader studies on maternal filicide indicating success rates as low as 0.1% across criminal trials but occasionally higher (up to one-third) in infanticide subsets where postpartum psychosis is alleged. Claims of mitigating factors, such as "neonaticide syndrome" involving pregnancy denial or dissociative states, remain debated in court, as they often fail to meet evidentiary thresholds for diminished capacity or duress, with experts critiquing their reliance on non-DSM-recognized patterns that may excuse rather than explain the act. Conviction rates in prosecuted neonaticide cases are high, often exceeding 90% where of concealment or direct causation is established, though exhibit wide variability, ranging from to or short terms (e.g., mean of 617 days in one Finnish cohort of 12 ). In the United States, lacking specific statutes unlike many other nations, offenders face charges without statutory mitigation for postpartum factors, leading to harsher baseline outcomes but still variable pleas to . Post-conviction outcomes prioritize public safety through incarceration over exclusive rehabilitation, despite of near-zero recidivism rates among neonaticide offenders, with repeated offenses occurring in only about 13% of tracked cases and no broad links to further . This approach counters lenient defenses by ensuring accountability, as low does not negate the act's gravity or the need for deterrence in hidden-pregnancy scenarios.

Historical Context

Ancient and Traditional Practices

In , exposure of newborns—leaving them outdoors to die or be rescued—was a legally permitted paternal right under patria potestas, frequently employed to eliminate infants with physical deformities, unclear paternity, or as a means of size amid economic pressures. This practice, documented in Roman legal texts like the Digest of Justinian, often targeted females due to preferences for male heirs who could contribute to household labor and , though archaeological DNA analyses from sites like the Yewden indicate no disproportionate female mortality in all cases, suggesting variability by region or context. Ancient Greek societies similarly practiced infant exposure, as evidenced in texts by and , who justified selective culling of deformed or excess offspring to preserve societal strength, with Sparta's apothetae—state-inspected abandonment sites—exemplifying risk-based elimination of those deemed unfit for military life. Anthropological records from pre-modern tribal groups, such as communities in the , reveal neonaticide during resource shortages, where female or twin infants were prioritized for killing to allocate limited food and maternal energy toward surviving siblings, a pattern corroborated by ethnographic accounts linking it to high environmental risks and nomadic constraints. Abrahamic traditions marked a causal shift by framing neonaticide as , with Jewish in the explicitly prohibiting the killing of newborns as a violation of the commandment against , diverging from surrounding pagan norms. Early Christian writings, including the and Apostolic Decree in , condemned exposure and strangulation as idolatrous and immoral, influencing Valentinian I's 374 CE edict criminalizing across the and reducing overt practices through doctrinal enforcement and community adoption networks. In the nineteenth century, legal and medical understandings of neonaticide shifted toward viewing it through the framework of postpartum mental disturbance, often termed puerperal insanity, rather than deliberate malice. Courts in Britain increasingly considered evidence of temporary madness induced by , influencing verdicts and reflecting emerging psychiatric insights into maternal . This marked a departure from earlier punitive approaches, prioritizing causal links between physiological changes and impaired judgment over strict moral culpability. Twentieth-century reforms formalized this leniency in jurisdictions. The United Kingdom's 1922 created a specific offense for mothers who unlawfully killed their newborns under one year old, attributing the act to a disturbed mind from effects, punishable as rather than . Amended by the 1938 to remove age limits and refine mental disturbance criteria, it enabled non-capital sentences and influenced similar laws in , , and . These statutes emphasized empirical recognition of perinatal mental states, reducing executions for such cases to near zero post-enactment. Twenty-first-century developments introduced preventive mechanisms to avert neonaticide. In the United States, enacted the first in 1999, allowing anonymous surrender of unharmed newborns up to 60 days old at approved locations like hospitals or fire stations without prosecution, in response to rising abandonment incidents. All 50 states adopted variants by 2005, typically limiting eligibility to infants under 72 hours to 30 days old and requiring prompt transfer to child services. Internationally, baby hatches—ventilated enclosures alerting staff to deposited infants—expanded from 1950s German models to over 100 sites in countries including , , and parts of by the 2010s, aiming to provide safe alternatives amid cultural stigmas. Advancements in investigative technology have enhanced accountability for historical cases. Since 2023, forensic genetic genealogy has resolved multiple unsolved neonaticides by matching DNA from remains to public databases, identifying mothers who abandoned deceased newborns decades prior and facilitating arrests. This method, combining autosomal DNA with genealogical records, has clarified causal sequences in cold cases previously stalled by lack of suspects. Despite these reforms promoting leniency and alternatives, neonaticide incidence has shown limited decline in some regions, with rates remaining stable at 1-2 per 100,000 births annually in Western countries, indicating that legal shifts alone may not fully address underlying social or psychological drivers. Empirical analyses suggest mixed , as safe haven utilization stays low (fewer than 100 surrenders yearly in many states) while undetected cases persist.

Cultural Perspectives

Cross-Cultural Norms and Stigmas

In historical contexts, certain indigenous and Asian societies exhibited tolerance for , including neonaticide, under conditions of resource scarcity or social undesirability. Among the of the , deliberate killing of young children was justified biologically for deformities or twinship and socially for illegitimate births, large family sizes, or , reflecting adaptive responses to harsh ecological pressures. In early during the (circa 7–1 B.C.), official memorials acknowledged and tolerated as a means of amid economic constraints. Similarly, in Tokugawa (1660–1950), the practice of mabiki—spacing births through —was culturally embedded to manage household resources, often overriding immediate maternal bonds in favor of long-term family survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, such norms represent cultural mechanisms that modulated biological imperatives, treating as a form of or reproductive strategy in environments where offspring viability was uncertain. Comparative analyses across and societies indicate that infanticide can enhance parental fitness by reallocating resources to more viable progeny, with cultural norms amplifying this in human groups facing high mortality or subsistence challenges. These practices persisted where ecological demands superseded individual attachment drives, as seen in historical European deferred infanticide and non-Western traditions. In contemporary settings, explicit stigma against neonaticide has become near-universal, yet enforcement and implicit acceptance vary, particularly in resource-poor regions where underreporting masks . Global reveal that killings, including neonaticides, are systematically undercounted in developing nations due to incomplete vital registration and social concealment, with neonatal cases especially prone to omission in Pacific and low-income countries. rates have declined in European countries from 1960–2009 but remained stable or rose in many non-European industrialized and developing contexts, suggesting persistent cultural tolerances amid weak institutional oversight. This disparity underscores how socioeconomic factors in poorer settings sustain lower detection rates, challenging assumptions of uniform global condemnation.

Media and Public Narratives

Media coverage of neonaticide often emphasizes sympathetic portrayals of perpetrators as overwhelmed young women driven by desperation, trauma, or , framing the act as a tragic aberration rather than deliberate . Quantitative analyses of reports reveal patterns of that humanize the —using terms like "newly born" instead of " victim" and attributing motives to postpartum distress or concealed pregnancies—while minimizing focus on the newborn's death. This approach aligns with broader media tendencies to sensationalize female-perpetrated through narratives of the "flawed ," eliciting public over condemnation of the infant's harm. Such representations, prevalent in outlets covering cases like abandonments in the and , prioritize the perpetrator's , including family pressures or lack of support, which can obscure the calculated elements of pregnancy denial and disposal documented in offender profiles. These narratives have demonstrably shaped public perception and policy responses, with high-profile stories of "dumpster babies" in the late prompting expansions of safe haven laws across U.S. states by the early 2000s. Sensationalized accounts in print and television, including dedicated episodes on unsafe abandonments, heightened awareness of neonaticide risks, leading legislators to enact anonymous surrender provisions to prevent such outcomes; by , all states had some form of these laws, correlating with media-driven campaigns emphasizing maternal redemption over punitive measures. In contrast, coverage in conservative-leaning outlets more frequently highlights calls for stricter enforcement and victim , underscoring the infant's and the need for , though this receives less analytical attention in aggregated . The divergence reflects ideological biases, with left-leaning sources amplifying mitigating factors like crises, potentially influencing lenient sentencing trends observed in some jurisdictions. Recent reporting on DNA-resolved cold cases has introduced a counter-narrative emphasizing forensic accountability, as genetic genealogy identifies mothers in long-unsolved "Baby Doe" incidents, such as a 1997 Longview, Texas newborn murder solved in 2025. These stories, covered in outlets like and national podcasts, shift focus from immediate sympathy to belated , revealing patterns of deliberate abandonment and prompting reevaluation of unresolved cases. However, even here, media often softens perpetrator profiles with references to youthful , underplaying empirical findings from that most neonaticide offenders—typically unmarried young women without prior —engage in extended pregnancy denial and active concealment, indicating rational agency over involuntary trauma. Studies of offender characteristics refute overreliance on excuses like acute , which affect only a minority, yet media persistence in trauma-centric frames risks distorting causal understanding and toward leniency.

Prevention Efforts

Medical and Support Interventions

Medical interventions for preventing neonaticide primarily target risk factors such as and acute postpartum crises, including prenatal vigilance for concealed pregnancies and postpartum screening for . Healthcare providers, including school nurses and obstetricians, are positioned to detect early signs of through routine assessments of menstrual irregularities or abdominal changes in at-risk adolescents and young women, potentially enabling intervention before birth. However, empirical data on the efficacy of such screening remains limited, as many cases involve women who actively avoid due to or dissociation, rendering detection challenging in non-hospital settings. Postpartum psychological support focuses on rapid identification and treatment of conditions like , which can precipitate , through protocols involving medication and hospitalization to separate mother and if risk is deemed high. Neuroscientific evidence underscores the need for pharmacological intervention in psychotic episodes, as untreated symptoms correlate with elevated harm risks, though this applies more to extended than the immediate neonaticide window. Hospital-based protocols for at-risk births, such as enhanced monitoring of socially isolated or denial-prone mothers post-delivery, aim to interrupt impulsive acts via staff observation and crisis counseling, but implementation depends on birth occurring in medical facilities, which excludes hidden deliveries common in neonaticide. Evaluations of these approaches reveal modest impacts at best; while perinatal programs, including , have demonstrated reductions in symptoms by up to 50% in targeted trials, no large-scale studies quantify specific decreases in neonaticide rates, with failures persisting in undetected or isolated cases. Critiques highlight that overemphasis on therapeutic interventions may neglect causal drivers like biological stress responses to or reproductive secrecy, which operate independently of treatable and evade clinical reach in concealed pregnancies. Comprehensive prevention thus requires integrating efforts with broader detection strategies, though gaps underscore the challenges in empirically validating efficacy against this rare outcome.

Policy Tools and Safe Surrender Options

Safe haven laws permit anonymous surrender of unharmed newborns, generally within 72 hours of birth, at designated sites like hospitals, fire stations, or police departments, with the intent of averting unsafe abandonment and neonaticide by facilitating legal transfer to state custody for . Enacted in response to publicized abandonment cases in the late , such as those in in 1999, these laws proliferated across states in the early 2000s, achieving nationwide coverage including by 2008. Baby hatches, secure incubation compartments at medical or welfare facilities allowing anonymous infant deposit with automatic alerts to staff, originated in modern form in during the —building on Germany's "Babyklappe" model—and spread to , exemplified by Japan's operational hatch at Jizō Yakusanon since 1999. These mechanisms prioritize parental anonymity to circumvent , enabling rapid medical evaluation and placement into foster or adoptive care without immediate legal repercussions for the surrender. Empirical outcomes reveal modest preventive impact; in , introduction of anonymous delivery options correlated with a statistically significant decline in police-reported neonaticides from 2003 to 2010, suggesting partial deterrence through accessible, stigma-free alternatives. Conversely, U.S. data post-Safe Haven enactment show no overall reduction in homicide rates, with 92.4% of cases involving infants beyond the typical surrender age limit, indicating the policies primarily address only the narrow window of neonaticide risk without curbing broader or abandonment patterns. Surrender volumes remain low—often dozens annually per state—yielding infrequent adoptions and exposing limitations in uptake, particularly where cultural stigma or persists; misuse occurs when parents attempt to deposit ineligible older infants, sometimes resulting in exposure or harm before intervention. Critiques highlight how anonymity may foster irresponsibility by permitting pregnancy concealment and unaccountable relinquishment, offloading familial duties onto public systems without incentivizing or support engagement, a view echoed in conservative analyses emphasizing personal over facilitated evasion. Certain law provisions, such as mother-only surrender clauses, have been linked to elevated rates in state-level studies, underscoring causal gaps where policies fail to enforce dual-parent involvement or extend age limits effectively. In high-stigma settings, utilization remains empirically constrained, preventing only isolated cases while root drivers like socioeconomic distress or relational isolation endure unabated.

Debates and Controversies

Ethical Evaluations

From a sanctity-of-life ethical framework, neonaticide is deemed inherently immoral, equivalent to , as the newborn represents a distinct entity with intrinsic and an inviolable right to from birth onward, independent of subjective valuations like parental intent or socioeconomic factors. This position asserts full moral culpability for the perpetrator, rejecting mitigations based on or postpartum distress, since the act deliberately terminates an innocent life capable of and relational bonds. Utilitarian evaluations, by contrast, assess neonaticide through net welfare consequences, occasionally allowing it in narrowly defined scenarios—such as direct threats to maternal survival—where killing averts comparably severe harms, though such permissions remain theoretical and sparsely defended given of effective medical and psychological interventions that preserve both lives. Predominant utilitarian analyses, however, conclude the act fails cost-benefit scrutiny, as the newborn's prospective capacity for , social contributions, and avoidance of precedent-setting harms to communal trust yield disutility exceeding any short-term relief to the mother, particularly amid data showing treatable underlying conditions like dissociation rather than inexorable necessity. Causal realist perspectives emphasize neonaticide's embedding within a traceable chain of volitional acts—from conception through to delivery—imputing responsibility without excusing via purported evolutionary legacies, as modern welfare infrastructures dismantle scarcity-driven adaptations that might have contextualized it ancestrally, rendering the behavior maladaptive and a deviation from rational foresight in resource-abundant environments.

Reform Proposals and Critiques

Proposals to reform neonaticide laws have included expanding statutes, such as the UK's 1938, which permits a reduced charge of infanticide rather than when a mother's mind is disturbed by childbirth effects, to jurisdictions like the , where no such specialized statutes exist despite their prevalence in most other countries. Other suggestions involve statutory separation of maternal neonaticide for consistent sentencing or incorporating "neonaticide syndrome"—characterized by and dissociation—as a formal defense to mitigate culpability. Advocates, often emphasizing postpartum mental disturbances, argue these measures align with empirical patterns of and isolation in perpetrators, potentially reducing harsh outcomes without excusing intent. Critiques of such expansions highlight a lack of causal evidence that leniency deters neonaticide, with no observed rate reductions in jurisdictions like the UK compared to the stricter US framework; UK neonaticide accounts for 20-25% of its 30-45 annual infant homicides, yielding roughly 6-11 cases yearly, while US rates remain comparably low per capita without specialized mitigations, suggesting policy alone does not drive incidence. These reforms are faulted for undermining accountability by formalizing excuses that blur mens rea, as seen in contemporary UK applications where the Act's vague "balance of mind" criterion has led to inconsistent verdicts and failed pleas in recent cases, potentially eroding public trust in justice without addressing root causes like concealment. Neonaticide syndrome defenses face similar scrutiny for overreliance on unproven psychiatric constructs, risking misuse akin to contested insanity pleas that fail to prevent recidivism or recurrence in untreated cases. Debates pit empathy-driven views—prevalent in left-leaning advocacy for reprieve, as in 2023 defenses of the following harsher child-mother convictions—against accountability-focused critiques that prioritize deterrence and victim rights, noting leniency's failure to curb acts despite expanded psychiatric considerations. Empirical gaps persist, with no robust data linking reduced sentences to lower ; instead, patterns of repeated concealment in unprosecuted or lightly punished cases underscore that post-act mitigation does little to alter behavior absent preventive enforcement. Truth-seeking policy thus favors bolstering preemptive measures, like mandatory reporting of concealed pregnancies, over dilutions that lack deterrence validation and may signal impunity.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9179000/
  2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854807313410
  3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15202
  4. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.5.811
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1079289/
  6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1524838010371950
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28013408/
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23639682_Neonaticide_Phenomenology_and_Considerations_for_Prevention
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252708001428
  10. https://jaapl.org/content/53/3/232
  11. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196165
  12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1925362118821476
  13. https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/23/3/375.full.pdf
  14. https://jaapl.org/content/35/1/74
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2922347/
  16. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002003
  17. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6939a1.htm
  18. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.70136
  19. https://www.scup.com/doi/full/10.1080/14043858.2015.1038905
  20. https://jlsp.law.columbia.edu/files/2024/08/Wagner.pdf
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667009725000235
  22. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199810223391706
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2174580/
  24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00258024241298149
  25. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4198&context=etd
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368713865_Maternal_infanticide_-_evolutionary_psychological_perspective
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9902357/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38652323/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3933547/
  30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16997498/
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031938481900627
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3272565/
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11329409/
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247745143_Investigative_Analysis_of_NeonaticideAn_Exploratory_Study
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20554502/
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39222077/
  37. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.13365
  38. https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/CP02206012.pdf
  39. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199791231/obo-9780199791231-0192.xml
  40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4628677
  41. https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-021-03034-y
  42. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpm.12828
  43. https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000112
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4846035/
  45. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ijlse
  46. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=buffalolawreview
  47. https://www.nidaa.nl/images/shelton-2011.pdf
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1752928X15001274
  49. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%252Fcar.2589
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9790608/
  51. https://austinpublishinggroup.com/pediatrics/fulltext/ajp-v9-id1080.php
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36683010/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3128877/
  54. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1556-4029.15202
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14596371/
  56. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Pregnancy-Denial.aspx
  57. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/us/forensic-genetic-geneology-dna-babies.html
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40903400/
  59. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/1-2/36/section/1
  60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220183251365730
  61. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&context=sc-research
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257525624_Infanticideneonaticide_The_outlier_situation_in_the_United_States
  63. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=usflawreview
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933809710624
  65. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-psychiatry/article/forensic-psychiatric-and-legal-aspects-of-infanticide-and-neonaticide-in-russia/CA20E27252AE9441C0E044766DDC43FA
  66. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-244X-9-74
  67. https://bettercarenetwork.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Child-Abandonment-and-Its-Prevention-in-Europe.pdf
  68. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/newborn-killings-drop-after-anonymous-delivery-law-idUSBRE8BB1BJ/
  69. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-0528.12099
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7537560/
  71. https://jaapl.org/content/40/3/318
  72. https://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/PDF/Neonaticide.pdf
  73. https://scispace.com/pdf/neonaticide-and-the-misuse-of-the-insanity-defense-fpr6gjac8v.pdf
  74. https://psiquiatrico.cl/wp-content/uploads/seminario/Casanova-the-admissibility-of-non-dsm-syndromes-in-court-III-chile.pdf
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073800002061
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49638388_Ambivalence_Toward_Mothers_Who_Kill_An_Examination_of_45_US_Cases_of_Maternal_Neonaticide
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000268
  78. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2932&context=facscholar
  79. https://www.thoughtco.com/roman-exposure-of-infants-118370
  80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3288906
  81. https://academic.oup.com/book/6954/chapter/151225098
  82. https://www.livescience.com/42834-ancient-roman-infanticide.html
  83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26506086/
  84. https://www.spartareconsidered.com/infanticide.html
  85. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2800072
  86. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-rights-of-children-infanticide-vs-jewish-tradition/
  87. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/early-christianitys-resistance-to-infanticide-and-exposure/10898016
  88. https://karger.com/neo/article/109/1/56/231440/From-Right-to-Sin-Laws-on-Infanticide-in-Antiquity
  89. https://midlandshistoricalreview.com/20200513_badormad/
  90. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=historical-perspectives
  91. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=ulj
  92. https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/100-years-of-the-infanticide-act
  93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK612252/
  94. https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/44111/1/44111_KASPERSSON_Infanticide_in_Sweden_From_condemnation_to_too_much_consideration.pdf
  95. https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-219
  96. https://lozierinstitute.org/safe-haven-laws-a-primer/
  97. https://lozierinstitute.org/safe-haven-laws-an-invitation-to-life/
  98. https://jpnim.com/index.php/jpnim/article/download/090124/680/3019
  99. https://papers.iafor.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/ecerp2018/ECERP2018_41322.pdf
  100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290597936_From_Crime_to_Disease_Laws_on_Infanticide_in_the_Modern_Era
  101. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=faculty_scholarship
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953608005327
  103. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-china/article/infant-abandonment-in-early-china/167AB16B09AF26ED63BCD226E938229D
  104. https://content.ucpress.edu/chapters/12058.ch01.pdf
  105. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2742911
  106. https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781351512626_A30457022/preview-9781351512626_A30457022.pdf
  107. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002004
  108. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_6new.pdf
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2292136/
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8585832/
  111. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258154766_Medea_in_the_media_Narrative_and_myth_in_newspaper_coverage_of_women_who_kill_their_children
  112. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/items/27983318-b9d9-4f95-8e08-c6c789748ce4
  113. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/179/
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882596307002965
  115. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2361&context=etd
  116. https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/baby-doe-cold-cases-forensic-genealogy/
  117. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQs449V2Z2I
  118. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.9.1578
  119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25417331/
  120. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.9.1548
  121. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9028305_Preventing_the_Tragedy_of_Neonaticide
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4134152/
  123. https://www.hkmj.org/system/files/hkm0602p61.pdf
  124. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27649821/
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3586365/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3621136/
  127. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/safe-havens-for-babies-questioned/
  128. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.16.22282430v3.full.pdf
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1169313/
  130. https://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
  131. https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/the-sanctity-of-human-life.html
  132. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/infanticide/3E87E565E5882468217F7AEB4ECE6BD4
  133. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12211246/
  134. https://www.equip.org/articles/steven-pinkers-evolutionary-explanation-of-infanticide/
  135. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bsl.2034
  136. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/infanticideneonaticide-outlier-situation-united-states
  137. https://www.ltomhistory.org/post/problems-with-the-infanticide-act-1922
  138. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/infanticide-vulnerable-mothers-kill-babies-152016379.html
  139. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2025CanLIIDocs1835
  140. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324963629_Criminalising_Neonaticide_Reflections_on_Law_and_Practice_in_England_and_Wales
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.