This documentary gives you so much to dissect. At the heart of it all is a dead eight-year-old boy named Gabriel Fernandez. He died on May 24th, 2013 after being beaten to death by his mother and her boyfriend in their Palmdale, CA home. About that, there is no doubt. Who should be blamed is where the doubt enters the picture.
You have the principal actors in his mother, Pearl Fernandez, and her boyfriend, Isauro Aguirre.
Then you have the governmental bodies that were supposed to protect Gabriel from his harmful home in the Sheriff's department--who was called to the home several times--and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
And, if you are so inclined, you can place a portion of blame on his teacher and his extended family for not preventing Gabriel from going back to that house.
If this were a pyramid of blame, Pearl would be on top because she was surely the instigator and main offender. Isauro, at best, is a partner in the blame and could even be below Pearl. DCFS would be below them along with the LA County Sheriffs. It's all very upsetting no matter how you slice it.
Isauro was tried first and the D.A. was looking for a First Degree Murder charge with special circumstances of torture. She was also seeking the death penalty. Being a Californian myself I happen to know that the death penalty is more-or-less a charge to indicate severity because no one is really ever executed. I can't tell you the last execution California had. Be that as it may, Isauro was looking at the death penalty.
On the surface this should be an open and shut case. The evidence of Isauro's guilt was ubiquitous. Gabriel had cuts, bruises, burns, and more that dated back months. Although his mother was responsible for some Isauro was responsible for some as well. More importantly, Isauro was responsible for the death blow. Isauro's hand in Gabriel's death was never in question, only the degree. Should he be guilty of first degree murder and be considered for the death penalty or second degree which carries a long sentence, but there is a hope of eventual freedom.
First degree has the legal definition of acting "willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation (malice aforethought)." Isauro acted willfully. He wasn't acting under duress or mind control. Isauro acted deliberately. It was no accident that he beat Gabriel. Did he intend to kill him though? That's a big question. The D.A., the jurors, and who knows who else believe that he intended to kill him. Their evidence is that no one of sound mind would torture a child to that degree without knowing that it would kill him. In other words, Isauro knew that the beatings would result in Gabriel's death.
I would argue that that is difficult to prove and almost impossible to know. Premeditation can be as soon as a second before the act, but the act of torture alone is not an indication of an intent to kill. Torture is something done all of the time for various reasons and death is not always the goal. But my argument presents a problem for me. I don't think Isauro intended to kill Gabriel, BUT... I am in favor of the death penalty in this case. Even though I don't think this was first degree murder I think the egregiousness of the beatings from this 6'2" 270 pound man was deserving of a death sentence. And maybe, just maybe that was the position of some jurors. Put differently, maybe there were jurors that wanted the death penalty for this creep, but their only means to that end was a guilty count on the charge of first degree murder.
Once Pearl saw that they were handing out death sentences she didn't want to take those chances so she took a plea bargain. She got a life sentence (even though I think she deserved Isauro's sentence if not worse).
Next, four social workers were tried. This is where it gets really complicated. How much onus is upon the social workers? And are the social workers acting alone or upon orders? Because if they're acting within the system, then maybe the system is broken and these four social workers shouldn't be punished for a flawed system.
It's a difficult issue. Do you liken them to doctors who have to carry malpractice insurance to protect them in the case they make a mistake? Or are they like police who, if they mistakenly kill someone, the department pays, but there aren't any criminal charges? I don't know. All I know is that the entire ordeal was profoundly sad.
You have the principal actors in his mother, Pearl Fernandez, and her boyfriend, Isauro Aguirre.
Then you have the governmental bodies that were supposed to protect Gabriel from his harmful home in the Sheriff's department--who was called to the home several times--and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
And, if you are so inclined, you can place a portion of blame on his teacher and his extended family for not preventing Gabriel from going back to that house.
If this were a pyramid of blame, Pearl would be on top because she was surely the instigator and main offender. Isauro, at best, is a partner in the blame and could even be below Pearl. DCFS would be below them along with the LA County Sheriffs. It's all very upsetting no matter how you slice it.
Isauro was tried first and the D.A. was looking for a First Degree Murder charge with special circumstances of torture. She was also seeking the death penalty. Being a Californian myself I happen to know that the death penalty is more-or-less a charge to indicate severity because no one is really ever executed. I can't tell you the last execution California had. Be that as it may, Isauro was looking at the death penalty.
On the surface this should be an open and shut case. The evidence of Isauro's guilt was ubiquitous. Gabriel had cuts, bruises, burns, and more that dated back months. Although his mother was responsible for some Isauro was responsible for some as well. More importantly, Isauro was responsible for the death blow. Isauro's hand in Gabriel's death was never in question, only the degree. Should he be guilty of first degree murder and be considered for the death penalty or second degree which carries a long sentence, but there is a hope of eventual freedom.
First degree has the legal definition of acting "willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation (malice aforethought)." Isauro acted willfully. He wasn't acting under duress or mind control. Isauro acted deliberately. It was no accident that he beat Gabriel. Did he intend to kill him though? That's a big question. The D.A., the jurors, and who knows who else believe that he intended to kill him. Their evidence is that no one of sound mind would torture a child to that degree without knowing that it would kill him. In other words, Isauro knew that the beatings would result in Gabriel's death.
I would argue that that is difficult to prove and almost impossible to know. Premeditation can be as soon as a second before the act, but the act of torture alone is not an indication of an intent to kill. Torture is something done all of the time for various reasons and death is not always the goal. But my argument presents a problem for me. I don't think Isauro intended to kill Gabriel, BUT... I am in favor of the death penalty in this case. Even though I don't think this was first degree murder I think the egregiousness of the beatings from this 6'2" 270 pound man was deserving of a death sentence. And maybe, just maybe that was the position of some jurors. Put differently, maybe there were jurors that wanted the death penalty for this creep, but their only means to that end was a guilty count on the charge of first degree murder.
Once Pearl saw that they were handing out death sentences she didn't want to take those chances so she took a plea bargain. She got a life sentence (even though I think she deserved Isauro's sentence if not worse).
Next, four social workers were tried. This is where it gets really complicated. How much onus is upon the social workers? And are the social workers acting alone or upon orders? Because if they're acting within the system, then maybe the system is broken and these four social workers shouldn't be punished for a flawed system.
It's a difficult issue. Do you liken them to doctors who have to carry malpractice insurance to protect them in the case they make a mistake? Or are they like police who, if they mistakenly kill someone, the department pays, but there aren't any criminal charges? I don't know. All I know is that the entire ordeal was profoundly sad.