And the moral of the story is...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Apr 4, 2004.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    If you think you hear god talking to you..

    Your insane!
     
  2. darkblue macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #2
    There's already a thread on this in 'current events' I believe....but yeah. That's absolutely shocking. I don't think we get such horrific tragedies occuring over here...
     
  3. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816

    blue&whiteman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    #3
    I think some people are born with the capability to do something so horrible and others gain it from an abusive life. either way its very sad and just the thought of it makes my heart ache :(
     
  4. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #4
    I don't know her personal history but it would be interesting to see if she has a diagnosible mental illness. BTW, "insane" is a legal term, not a psychiatric one.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    That's because psychology is still partially subjective. When using science as concrete evidence in the legal system, it must be objective (like DNA testing or ballistics physics). If it's too subjective, like a polygraph, it's entirely inadmissible. Psychology is respected and recognised enough that it's admissible, but when it is, it's often made through mutliple experts in the field, because they seldom arrive at a consensus.

    Then it's up to the judge or jury to decide which mixture of facts and theory applies to the defendant.
     
  6. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #6
    :confused:
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
  8. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #8

    What you said made no sense to me.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    I was expounding on your observation that insanity is a legal definition. I was trying to show why. It's because psychology is not an exact science, and since the legal system doesn't accept inexact answers as concrete proof, it's up to the legal system, not the psychology field, to define an absolute such as "insanity."
     
  10. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #10
    okay... I don't think that is why... but okay...
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    That was always my understanding of it: that psychology was not equipped to judge when someone was legally "insane" and mentally unfit to stand trial. What is your understanding of it?
     
  12. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #12

    Without having looked up the history I *suspect* the idea of insanity predates the advent of modern psychology. Insanity is a legal definition that states someone didn't know right from wrong when they committed a crime. Psychology does not use the term insanity. They'd be more likely to say someone had a psychotic break. And, I believe it is psychologists and psychiatrists who are the experts who determine (ie testify) rather or not someone was "insane" at the time they committed a crime. They also are the ones to determine (ie testify) rather or not a person is mentally fit to stand trial. I don't think it has to do with Psychology being a social science versus a hard science.
     
  13. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #13
    Well I think your kind of both right. Pseudo, you're right in basically saying that its up to the judge and jury to decide whether or not they believe said experts, and neserk, err you right too, cos umm Psychology is seen jsut as valuable as a "hard science" although it depends on who the judge is.
     
  14. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #14

    Having a BA in Psychology and having benefitted greatly from its research I would say it is about as hard a science as you can get when dealing with the human mind ;)
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    So, I've asked this before and never gotten a suitable reply so here goes... How do we know God didn't ask her to do this? God has asked this of at least one person before supposedly, although in that case he is said to have relented in the end. But suppose there WAS some kind of holy missive here? And would that mitigate any sentence for this woman? I would think devout Christians would be afraid that come judgement day they might have to answer for why they punished this woman for doing His work.

    And on a related note, I would like to know the differences between this and the Andrea Yates case. Was the difference just the luck of the jury makeup? Or was there some kind of fundametal difference between the two cases?
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    That's GW-type reasoning! "God TOLD me to smite those A-rabs...." ;)
     
  17. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    yeah, maybe it's just a case of pre-emption. an imminent danger. little hitlers and saddams and such. isn't such a doctrine standard operating procedure these days?
     
  18. blue&whiteman macrumors 65816

    blue&whiteman

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    #18
    its like I said earlier...

    you guys are really over analyzing this. people like her have issues and if god really did make her do this then i'm that much more happy I have Buddha as my spiritual leader.
     
  19. poopyhead macrumors 6502a

    poopyhead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Location:
    in the toe-jam of greatness (Fort Worth)
    #19
    the yates jury was death qualified and thus probably more likely to hand down a guilty verdict whereas the jury in this latest case was not also in the yates case the psychologists disagreed on whether or not she was sane in the latest case all of the psychologist agreed she was insane
     
  20. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20

    This belongs on the religious extremists thread!
     
  21. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #21
    Its capital 'G', as in God.

    And the real moral of the story is..."If you think you hear God talking to you, and this extradimensional being tells you to kill your 3 sons..."

    Ask him to submit it in writing, in triplicate, along with verbal confirmation from a burning bush. :D :p :D
     
  22. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #22
    ROFL
     
  23. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #23
    one thing that bugs me is how people argue about the outcome of trials based on secondhand media sources. None of us were there and heard all the evidence. Like when those TV "news" programs give you half the evidence then ask you if the verdict was correct with a call in poll. :eek:

    If I'm not in the jury room I trust that, at the very least, the people in the jury room had more information than I ever will.

    I always wanted to use an "eek".
     

Share This Page