Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Dippo, Apr 3, 2004.
Associated Press Link
This is a very sad story.
But, just because she was found not guilty does not mean she's getting off. Since she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, she will be sentenced to spend time in a Texas Psychiatric Hospital. The judge can sentence her to spend up to 40 years in a mental hospital.
Personally, I think she should be committed for every bit of those 40 years.
It is a strange situation... if she was really insane, then she should be held in a mental institution until "cured", if that is possible. Should she then be held longer to punish her now sane self? That seems cruel. But it seems hard to just let her go free at some arbitrary point given her crime.
I see your point. You also raise another issue. When is someone who is insane "cured"? The problem you will run into is that one doctor will say she is cured, and one will say she isn't. This will go back and forth until finally, she has ended up serving the time she was sentenced to. I don't think she should be held after she is deemed sane, but I think a person this sick is incurable.
It is always sad when a child kills her children. I just wonder if she had a better lawyer than Susan Smith. Both are just as despicable. Can't even imagine the horror that the child must go through to have his own mother take its life. In most cases with a mental illness that severe, you are really never truly curried. On medication you can improve to the point of being safe.
Well, if they proved that she was mentally ill, then insanity would be a legitimate complete defence.
The question is, why were the kids left in the care of a mother who is so obviously incapable of taking care of her own children. If the authorities or social services had been proactive, this tragedy could have been avoided.
That's really unfortunate. I hope the mother's been put away somewhere for psychiatric treatment or something, so that she doesn't remain a threat to the rest of the community.
Now I'm sure many will disagree with me on this, but I feel that insanity is no reason not to punish a criminal. If they can commit a vicious crime and then claim insanity, that doesn't negate the fact that they killed somebody and their insanity will only lead them to more violence. I support the death penalty, and especially in the case of violently insane individuals (not all the insane have violent tendencies). They're still a menace to society whether they were insane or not. Really, almost all anti-social behavior could be labeled insanity if we want, bc really all were trying to do is to avoid responsibility for our actions.
Which brings up the insanity defense itself. How can someone who can sit through a trial without sporadically acting insane, but instead perfectly sane (except for that one time) really claim insanity? Temporary insanity? How about extreme anger followed by intense remorse. It's not insanity, it's not having learned to control yourself. A while ago one of my cousins got really angry and killed someone. He claimed temporary insanity. He wasn't insane, he lost control.