Texas Investigators Stunned by Child Dismemberment
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8182298The scene was so gruesome investigators could barely speak: A 3 1/2-week-old boy lay dismembered in the bedroom of a single-story house, three of his tiny toes chewed off, his face torn away, his head severed and his brains ripped out.
what the fuck
The devil made her do it. What an asshole.
is this another pcp story?
it's another "hey look i'm a mom and i have emotional issues and i am going ot kill my kid because it is too expensive and then cite something religious as my motivation and get off of a capital murder charge"
So, that is kind of like the opposite of seeing the Virgin Mary in your cheese sandwich.
She already had been in and out of psych wards.
Why wasn't someone watching her to make sure she didn't get post partem depression? I mean, that plus whatever-the-hell-else she has goin' on inside her head would naturally have this kind of end result.
And she better not get away with this shit. Being crazy is no excuse.
Originally Posted by gina
I don't understand Post partem...
you got all sad cause you're no longer a monstrous wildebeest and have the kid attached to your tit 23/7(1 hour a day for the crack pipe)
lik dis if u cry evertim
The Child Protective Services in Texas are obviously over rated.
I think legally being crazy is, and should rightly be, an excuse.
It's been way overused as an excuse by people who are not, in fact, crazy.
I'm not saying that all people who are crazy and commit crimes shouldn't be given special care or that they should go to jail forever or whatever. I'm saying that something MUST be done about their craziness or they don't get to walk the streets and do something like THIS ever again. And they should STILL be punished somehow.
Ripping out your baby's brain is unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.
It's a chemical imbalance similar to depression, only much heavier.
With regard to legal insanity pleas, I personally have my doubts as to whether the legal concept of insanity actually corresponds at all to any actual mental conditions, just as I don't think the legal concept of "free will" or even competency exists at all in reality. A person can't have thought patterns which fall into the normal range in order to murder someone; otherwise, we'd be killing people all the time.
Certainly, if a person has full-blown schizophrenia and was hallucinating during a murder, then obviously that person if not competent. Otherwise, especially if the mental abnormality that leads to a killing is an emotional one, then I don't see at all a clear distinction between "legal insanity" and "legal competency." Especially because I don't believe in free will, I think it's often arbitrary whether these people should be treated as insane or competent at the time of the murder.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
sycld: It doesn't matter. StonedOne is a fucking idiot who thinks real life is like Law & Order.
The vast majority of people would be happier in jail with a prayer of parole than in a state-run mental institution. In reality, an insanity plea is almost never accepted by a jury (unlike Law & Order in which is happens just about every other week.) This is barking up the wrong, media-and-Hollywood-created tree.
Well exactly, its incredibly hard to prove diminished responsibility and normally it doesn't go through. Basically StonedOne doesn't know what he's talking about.
Sycld, most laws on insanity and responsibility correspond to the defendant's ability to tell right and wrong at the time of the crime's commital.
I know, and that was what I thought I was discussing in my post. Perhaps "competency" was the wrong word to use, as in legal jargon that probably means one's ability to stand trail rather than referring to the condition one was in when the crime was committed.
At any rate, I still think that a distinction between insane and sane at the time a crime was committed is not at all a reflection of reality.
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
<1% of people who use insanity defenses are successful
that being said some of those cases have been absolutely crucial in setting precedents that may or may not save a guilty person from jail in the future so tbh it is a rather important issue if you care about the criminal justice system
my personal belief is a very idealistic one and if i was given power of the world i'm not sure i would implement it tbh. i feel as though everything people are born as should be taken at face value. got an mental illness? outside of friends/families/private organizations you should be treated exactly the same by the government. killed your family because of "insanity"? you should go to jail undoubtedly. i believe if you show interest in partaking in therapy and rehabilitation your jail sentence should be altered slightly (think if you got 25 years, you serve 20 and then 5 in a hospital) assuming your insanity defense was accepted. but to completely shift blame off of somebody WHO'S FAULT IT WAS is asinine imo.
Last edited by faesce; 08-14-2009 at 06:44 PM.
this says:
"greater than 1% of people who use insanity defenses are succesful"
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
passing the buck is as american as cheeseburgers, fireworks and obesity
i mean our culture revolves so much about finding one person solely responsible for something that couldn't possibly be one person's fault just to assuage an artificially filled desire for 'justice' that i can't see anyone doing anything any different any time soon
Not according to any currently practicing attorney.
This is my feeling. We have equal rights, not equal abilities, and if you were born with a penchant for violence you should be punished the same as the person born with juvenile diabetes.
If I was the mother, I would just say one or more of the following:
1 - The child didn't want guns in the house.
2 - The child didn't believe in Jesus.
3 - The child believed in UHC.
4 - The child has other socialist tendancies.
That would make it ok in Texas.
oopz edited
wut? not sure what exactly you're saying here
are you trying to imply that insanity plea precedents are not set and are not used or what because i know quite a few defense lawyers and i've heard in several difference instances of people getting reduced sentences or none at all because of mental health most notably one gentleman who raped his daughter and got two months jail w/ work release (this happened extremely recently think: under 2 weeks ago)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks