The British au pair Louise Woodward is now free to return to England after Massachusetts' highest court yesterday upheld a judge's decision finding her guilty of manslaughter in the death of Matthew Eappen, the eight-month old baby who died in her care. The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is the effective end of a case which held the public in thrall for much of the past two years.
At issue was more than the guilt or innocence of Louise Woodward. Rather, this was a case which raised the most profound questions about the priority which modern, urban society gives to the issue of child care. It also raised questions about the intensity of the professional lives of those, like the Eappens, who worked - or are required to work - very long hours to achieve their career ambitions. The Supreme Court judgment - upheld by a narrow four votes to three - scarcely represents a vindication for Louise Woodward. On the contrary: the court, referring to her as a "convicted felon", believes that she bears primary responsibility for the death of Matthew Eappen. It also recommends that she should never again be allowed take care of other people's children. The dissenting judges were even more critical, believing that the 279 days which Louise Woodward spent in prison was unduly lenient. By contrast, the average sentence for manslaughter in Massachusetts is a five year prison term.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, should be commended for its ruling - not binding in Britain - that no one should benefit from the case by selling their story to the tabloids.
Louise Woodward will be warmly welcomed back to Cheshire, where local people fought a vigorous campaign for her release. Many were, rightly, outraged by the original decision to find Louise Woodward guilty of murder. This was no premeditated or orchestrated crime; a murder verdict represented a clear miscarriage of justice. For all that, many will contend that the manslaughter case against Louise Woodward was not insubstantial. The trial clearly portrayed a young woman who lacked the maturity, experience and judgment which should be a sine qua non for someone charged with the responsibility of looking after young children.
In truth, Louise Woodward was probably more victim than villain. She was a victim of circumstances, a victim of the low priority that Western society affords child-minding vis a vis career and personal ambition. It still seems scarcely credible that a young, successful couple were prepared to entrust the care of their children to a low-paid and inexperienced au pair like Louise Woodward. But every parent and every family will also feel great sympathy for the Eappen family who have lost a nine-month-old child in the most harrowing of circumstances. The Eappens were also the victim of cultural values which compelled them to work longer hours than they might have liked in order to maintain or improve their living standards.