|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 15, 2005 18:37:21 GMT -6
I certainly don't have pity, Joseph. I would definitly hope justice prevails in this case, and that she would get the DP this time. However, logic tells me that her defense will somehow convince the courts that more leniency is in order. A less-than sympathetic jury would be the most desirable setup in this case, and I am all for an appointment for her with door #17.
MrCoffee
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 18:38:11 GMT -6
Damn, Joe! You DA MAN! Excellent post! Thanks, Kay.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 16, 2005 2:27:18 GMT -6
Judges cannot fairly judge and appropriately punish those who might be mentally ill. Sure they can. If a culture determines that mental illness is irrelevant to punishment, the judge merely slams his gavel and pronounces the sentence predetermined by the electorate for that crime. No problem. In California, malice is so broadly defined that it is generally inferred from the crime itself. In other words, you can't really premeditate murder without also knowing that it's wrong. Any step one takes to conceal evidence of the crime, or choose the optimum time or circumstance for its commission, serves to meet the requirement for malice. Why is that these murdering moms are the only ones allowing their shrinks to claim they didn't know killing their own children was wrong? Did Marcus Wesson use this "diminished capacity" legerdemain at trial? Or David Westerfield? Are they not just as nuts as any murdering mom? That Andrea Yates was so out of her mind she couldn't restrain herself from murder is only based on personal opinion, speculation and conjecture, particularly since she did have violent impulses for a long time and never acted on them. There is no scientific evidence, no hard physical proof, nothing at all tangible, repeatable, predictable and testable, conclusively explaining why Andrea Yates, or anyone else claiming "diminished capacity", can't appreciate the consequence and wrongfulness of brutally murdering someone. Doubt about whether she knew right from wrong at the time of the murders isn't enough. Moral restraint has to be assumed, or we might as well discount it as a philosophical basis for prosecuting and punishing criminals. If you are unable to prove you didn't know right from wrong, I don't believe you. It's too easy a claim to make, by too many murderers, for me to entertain this diminished capacity nonsense in weighing someone's moral culpability for a crime such as murder. Firstly Joseph, your desire to move the determining of whether mental illness is relevant to an act of murder away from the experts in that arena and into the general population to make that determination is ill informed. The fact that you would so willingly do this in my view clarifies the differences that make some people fit to be judges and you a layman. Frankly you have no appreciation of the genuine complexity involved. As someone who has no expertise or experience in that specialised area, you respond by trying to move those decisions to those without said expertise. You construct what you think is a criteria that experts should follow, IE: to satisfy you to a level you accept. What you ignore though is that it is not possible to satisfy a layman because quite frankly you dont understand enough to speak about intelligently, the complicated basics and concepts involved, much less the science. You are not a doctor nor a specialist in that field, hence you struggle very early on. What you propose is the equivalent of me challenging a an entire group of scientists who want to send a manned mission to mars on the basis that I think their theories are heresay and opinion and that the project could never work. I know I would have to accept it if they told me it would because I dont even know enough about the fundamantals of that discipline to qualify to have anopinion on it's feasability. In relation to psychiatry, this is the dilemma I see you in Joe. A psychiatrist can never convince you to your satisfaction of anything you disagree with in this area because to do so would be to assume you understand the basic involved which you clearly dont. In other words, you are not informed. Most people with MI illness who go on to kill have lived with such impulses for a long time. You blame involved professionals when such things happen and I agree it needs looking at to see what lessons can be learned but again it is also not that simple. Some 4 years ago a patient of mine killede his mother whilst I was visiting them. There was a full inquiry into the event and it turned out the patient was suffering from early onset schizophrenia when previously seen by myself and others a year earlier. Problem is Joe that clinically we diagnosed him as depressed because in his case that is how his early onset appeared a year earlier. They had second third and fourth opinions (independent) on that diagnosis and guess what, - all said that with the clinical symptoms present the way we proceeded was reasonable and given the same situation again that would be the correct way to proceed. What I am saying is that my response to such complications is to continue to strive to clarify if there is a way of recognising it earlier without labelling everyone with simple depression, idf you know a way please let me know. Yes we got it wrong wrong wrong, but so would have anyone else. Mostly we get it right, but I know it is wrong to simply throw my hands up, renege on my responsibility and just hand it to a group with less experience as the next victim would likely not appreciate such faintheartedness in the face of difficulty. I dont know what your experience os [psychiatrists is, but if you have any it is just yours. I fail utterly to understand or see any valid proof on your part for removing the profession/expertise for the aforementioned human arenas and neither do the courts..
|
|
|
Post by Rhonda on Nov 16, 2005 7:12:11 GMT -6
Why wouldnt they seek help when they first began having impulses to kill someone? That is just something you shouldn't take lightly.
|
|
|
Post by myamber20 on Nov 28, 2005 15:30:09 GMT -6
Why wouldnt they seek help when they first began having impulses to kill someone? That is just something you shouldn't take lightly. Even when I get my angriest and my adrenaline goes up I do not have thoughts of murdering the person I am so mad at. I once had a fist fight with another woman (I know stupid) but I can still remember a voice in my head saying dont hit her in the face. I had that little person in my head telling me ...dont hit her too hard, dont hit her in the face. Where is that little person in the murderers mind???And I just had the experience with a little fist fight. AND to think to murder your own children is beyond my wildest comprehension. LOVE, PROTECT, LOVE PROTECT your children. I agree Get the help you need if you have had impulses to killing them, if you love them then get the help you need to protect them !!!!!
|
|