On Monday, 25-year-old Clara DaSilva, who had previously pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the September 2002 death of her two-year-old daughter, adrianna, was sentenced to three years in jail. That sentence makes her eligible for parole in six months.
DaSilva left her child alone in their apartment on four occasions back in 2002. Once she went to work but on three occasions she went out dancing and socializing. The child was left alone for a total of 33 hours.
DaSilva returned to her apartment after spending the night with a man that she met while salsa dancing and found her daughter dead. She was so upset at this discovery that she quickly left to go to a Money Mart to take out some cash. after she returned home she asked a neighbour to call 911.
The temperature in the apartment where the toddler was left was 35C (95F). Medical evidence determined that adrianna had died from dehydration and at one point would have stopped crying because she wouldn’t have had any tears left. She had severe diaper rash that was described to be similar to second degree burns.
The mother later told police that her purse containing her keys had been stolen so she could not return to the apartment until the next day when the superintendent would have been awake. On another occasion, she told police that a babysitter named Kelly was supposed to be caring for her daughter.
While DaSilva’s lawyer asked for house arrest; a condition sentence of two years less a day, the prosecution asked for a penitentiary sentence of 10 to 12 years.
The most shocking aspect of the sentence was that it was handed down by an experienced judge who seemed to have no misapprehension of the facts of the case or the seriousness of Clara DaSilva’s actions. Justice David Watt rejected the stolen purse and Kelly, the phantom babysitter as fabrications. He found that although DaSilva had some remorse, her main concern was for herself and not her daughter. Watt properly characterized DaSilva’s actions by saying "Clara DaSilva danced the night away in unflinching self-indulgence. She left adrianna alone in her crib in a sweltering room with inadequate fluid on which to survive, to dry up like the soil in a summer drought."
Even after characterizing this particular crime of manslaughter, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, in the way that he did, Watt chose to sentence Da Silva to only three years. Watt seemed to base the length of the sentence on the facts that DaSilva had spent eight months under stringent house arrest and that he didn’t think that she was a danger to society.
It would almost have been better had DaSilva received the maximum reformatory time of two years less a day. With a three year sentence she could end up at Joliet, ordering in pizza and spending the next two months salsa dancing with schoolgirl killer, Karla Homolka.
as the death of adrianna resulted from dehydration, it is hard not to think about the death of Terri Schiavo that took place less than two weeks before Clara DaSilva was sentenced. There are lots of differences between the two situations, not least of which is the fact that Terri’s death by starvation and dehydration was legal. But you can almost see the invisible hand of Michael Schiavo attorney, George Felos, in Justice Watt’s courtroom, speaking about how euphoric, happy and peaceful adrianna’s death would have been. When it came down to the crunch, Watt acted in the same manner as DaSilva did. The sentenced seem to be all about Clara DaSilva and very little consideration was given to the helpless toddler who died a slow death, alone in a furnace-like apartment.
adrianna’s outraged father was quoted as saying that if two men had a fight on the street that resulted in the death of one, the sentence would have been five or ten years. While his estimates are a little on the high side he makes a good point. Would Watt’s sentence have been so low if adrianna had been pummeled to death by a man?
Both the DaSilva and the Schiavo cases point out that the society that Justice Watt ruled doesn’t need protecting in this case, doesn’t put a very high premium on the death of those who are helpless and who serve mainly as an inconvenience to their caregivers. at least as long as those deaths are achieved by passive means that don’t involve physical violence or weapons.
The Crown is considering appealing the sentence and will probably launch an appeal. But no one should hold their breath hoping that the Ontario Court of appeal will increase it.