Does anyone else think that this is bullshit?

[18-Till-I-Die]

18TID
If you were given a gun would you shoot her?

No i would not. I'm not an executioner, and appearantly she was found not guilty, so i would not shoot her.

That doenst mean i dont want to see some kind of justice done, however.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Expanding on that...

If we keep down thsi road, there will be a point where the line between what is and isnt wrong is blurred. Any biggot who murders someone can say they were 'sick', any pedophile can claim mental illness, in short any crime could be written off ans an undiscovered mental diese.

Mental afflictions exist, but the question is: is mental illness a jail out of jail free card for any two-bit murderer or thug? Off hand, i'd say it is becoming tht.

[Glocksman]

Here's an article on the insanity defense and it's history.

One of the cornerstones of the criminal justice system in America is the concept of mens rea, a Latin phrase that translates to “state of mind.” In order for a person to be held criminally liable in the courts, our system demands that that he or she must have criminal intent or awareness of the wrongfulness of the act. If a person is mentally ill and unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, for example, then he or she cannot be held criminally culpable in our society.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I appologize for the shitty grammar. It's late, and i'm a little off right now.

[RedImperator]

Expanding on that...

If we keep down thsi road, there will be a point where the line between what is and isnt wrong is blurred. Any biggot who murders someone can say they were 'sick', any pedophile can claim mental illness, in short any crime could be written off ans an undiscovered mental diese.

Slipperly slope.

Mental afflictions exist, but the question is: is mental illness a jail out of jail free card for any two-bit murderer or thug? Off hand, i'd say it is becoming tht.

False dilemma ("discard insanity as a defense or allow any criminal to use it") and utterly unsupported assertion. Try again.

[Ghost Rider]

Expanding on that...

If we keep down thsi road, there will be a point where the line between what is and isnt wrong is blurred. Any biggot who murders someone can say they were 'sick', any pedophile can claim mental illness, in short any crime could be written off ans an undiscovered mental diese.

Mental afflictions exist, but the question is: is mental illness a jail out of jail free card for any two-bit murderer or thug? Off hand, i'd say it is becoming tht.

BUT THEY HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO BE MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF THEIR ACTIONS.

This is the cornerstone of why we have this...to show whether or not were they within their full capacity of understanding right or wrong.

When a Bigot/Two bit hood/Enforcer/Pedophile/Kidnapper kills they 99% of times know WHY they did it and grasp the Right or Wrong of said action...he or she knows full well what action was commited, and in that was legally sane...so stop strawmaning the issue. I may dislike that she is getting off, but if she did not KNOW what she was doing then she is by our terms legally insane.

[MarkIX]

Here's an article on the insanity defense and it's history.

One of the cornerstones of the criminal justice system in America is the concept of mens rea, a Latin phrase that translates to “state of mind.” In order for a person to be held criminally liable in the courts, our system demands that that he or she must have criminal intent or awareness of the wrongfulness of the act. If a person is mentally ill and unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, for example, then he or she cannot be held criminally culpable in our society.

HOw does Manslaughter work in this context?

[Darth Wong]

Criminal insanity means that you didn't realize what you were doing. The classic thought experiment is a sleepwalking man who thinks he's cutting a loaf of bread when he's actually slitting someone's throat.

In this case, she was completely cognizant of the fact that she was murdering her own children. She was not criminally insane. The fact that she thought God told her to do it does not in any way change the fact that she knew she was committing murder; it only means she thought she had some religious motive to do it.

Think about it: by the fucked-up "logic" used to exonerate this bitch, the 9/11 hijackers should be found not guilty (assuming they somehow survived and stood trial, of course).

[Darth Wong]

BUT THEY HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO BE MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF THEIR ACTIONS.

I would replace "right and wrong" with "legality or illegality" in that sentence. A white supremacist truly believes he's doing the right thing when he kills a black man for dating a white woman.

[haas mark]

Expanding on that...

If we keep down thsi road, there will be a point where the line between what is and isnt wrong is blurred. Any biggot who murders someone can say they were 'sick', any pedophile can claim mental illness, in short any crime could be written off ans an undiscovered mental diese.

This is not the same as criminally insane. That's why we have the distinction.

Mental afflictions exist, but the question is: is mental illness a [get] out of jail free card for any two-bit murderer or thug? Off hand, i'd say it is becoming tht.

No, because it actually requires thought and study on the part of psychologists and psychiatrists in order to determine whether alleged criminal is indeed insane. Do you know nothing of the legal system? If not, then why don't you just shut the fuck up?

[Plekhanov]

How about anyone who comits murder, insane or not, has to be tried and convicted as normal. No grey area there. It treats everyone as equals--they get the exact same chance in a court you or i would, and vice versa, and no cop outs other than, perhaps, a plea bargan.

I'd say that is far more fair and even handed than the current system.

What no exceptions whatsoever? There have been cases (admittedly rare) where people have committed serious crimes up to and including murder after reacting to prescription medicines or when suffering from undiagnosed brain tumours. When the medication was changed or the tumour treated they reverted to ‘normal’ and were appalled by their actions, are you really saying that these people should be put to death for things that truly aren’t their fault?

The law needs some flexibility and maybe even ‘grey areas’ as life is extremely complicated and is rarely black and white.

[Ghost Rider]

BUT THEY HAVE TO BE PROVEN TO BE MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF THEIR ACTIONS.

I would replace "right and wrong" with "legality or illegality" in that sentence. A white supremacist truly believes he's doing the right thing when he kills a black man for dating a white woman.

Yeah...my 1 AM brain should have, for proper citing of why we have that particular system.

[muse]

So let me get this straight, this case more or less comes down to "god told her to kill her children, and she killed them, and then she's found to be delusional and insane". Well I can definitely see where the delusional part comes in since there is no god but the rest..I don't know..i have no words to express my feelings.

There's things that ring warning bells in my head from that article, for instance:

Defense attorneys argued that insanity was the only reason why a deeply religious mother who homeschooled her children would kill two of them and maim another without so much as a tear.

Alright, so since when does being deeply religious and homeschooling your children have anything to do with it? Are they implying that a deeply religious person has to be insane to commit a sin? What would this mean for a non-religious person who commits a crime? I find this highly disturbing.

Prosecutors portrayed the killings as deceptively planned and coldly executed. They said that even if Laney believed she was doing right by God, she had to have known she was doing wrong by state law. Her first call, they pointed out, was to 911 to summon authorities.

Alright, so she killed her kids and the first thing she does is call the authorities. Why? I can think of several possibilities and they all imply that she knew she'd done something wrong. Maybe I'm not thinking hard enough, or maybe I'm just sane. I don't know.

[Mayabird]

Defense attorneys argued that insanity was the only reason why a deeply religious mother who homeschooled her children would kill two of them and maim another without so much as a tear.

Alright, so since when does being deeply religious and homeschooling your children have anything to do with it? Are they implying that a deeply religious person has to be insane to commit a sin? What would this mean for a non-religious person who commits a crime? I find this highly disturbing.

They say this every time somebody goes on a killing rampage: "But...but...he/she was so religious and went to church all the time!" It's the "Godly=Good" mentality most people are brainwashed into them from an early age until they can't even imagine something differently. You see this every time people claim that Christians/Muslims/whatever who murder in the name of their god "aren't REAL Christians/Muslims/whatnot." Hence Shrub's "Evil people have no religion" comments in speeches about Islamic terrorists.

[Bob McDob]

Mmm, if she somehow ends up getting cured she'll probably end up killing herself anyway.