|
Post by Californian on Feb 19, 2012 13:16:38 GMT -6
Agree. What is with the correlation between mental illness and murder? Some seem to think that mental illness causes one to murder. Thousands of mentally ill folks in the US prove otherwise. Fortunate for us that the vast majority of mentally ill folks do not commit murder. The vast majority of non-mentally ill folks do not commit murder either. I would be curious to read the opinion of Felix on this question. Does being mentally make one more likely to commit murder? "Mentally ill" does not mean "criminally insane." Almost every mentally ill person would be as horrified by these type of crimes as we all are. Some are, such as paranoid schizos responding to command voices, but I've often questioned whether or not sociopaths, which they all are, are really "mentally ill" or just missing the normal component of our personalities we call compassion.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Feb 19, 2012 15:26:17 GMT -6
Californian wrote: "Mentally ill" does not mean "criminally insane." Almost every mentally ill person would be as horrified by these type of crimes as we all are. True but from what I have observed, those wanting mental illness to be a mitigating factor for murder don't make that distinction. It seems that the presence of a diagnosed mental illness of any type is used as an excuse, for lack of a better word. If there is no relation between, broad term, mental illness and murder, why would it hold any more weight than a physical disability? Would we punish a one armed murderer less severely?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 19, 2012 22:35:41 GMT -6
True but from what I have observed, those wanting mental illness to be a mitigating factor for murder don't make that distinction. It seems that the presence of a diagnosed mental illness of any type is used as an excuse, for lack of a better word. If there is no relation between, broad term, mental illness and murder, why would it hold any more weight than a physical disability? Would we punish a one armed murderer less severely? You're preaching to the choir, DE. In the absence of a florid psychosis, I agree with you completely.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 20, 2012 10:51:47 GMT -6
As an addition to my original response I also understand The Green River Killer, Gary Rigway tried to stab a 6 year old to death when he was 16 "just to see what it was like". Coincidence? And is it just me or does this girl have Aileen Wournos's eyes? "So the killing of innocent people , no matter the cirumstance should be punishable by death? Is that your stance?" Well when you when you purposly plan out the murder, dig the graves and have all the time in the world for your consience to kick in and not even realize what you had done when it was over and even brag about it, then hell yes. That is first degree murder. Circumstances such as that are punishable by death in most states. I don't mean as in an accident or a fit of rage. I should have clarified that. Agree. What is with the correlation between mental illness and murder? Some seem to think that mental illness causes one to murder. Thousands of mentally ill folks in the US prove otherwise. Fortunate for us that the vast majority of mentally ill folks do not commit murder. The vast majority of non-mentally ill folks do not commit murder either. I would be curious to read the opinion of Felix on this question. Does being mentally make one more likely to commit murder? If so are all murderers mentally ill to some degree? Personally, I fail to see why mental illness is used as an excuse for murderous behavior. Is there a causal relationship? Well Cali alluded to the issue when he mentioned psychosis. Its all about nature and degree and whether the mental illness is of a nature or degree that could make a person likely to kill. We do know that command hallucinations where the individual experiences themselves being commanded to do such acts, - are generally the most dangerous. There is no evidence that this girl sufferred an illness of that nature. She appears to have sufferred "shyte life syndrome", and one could say that she may well have general mental health problems, but so does many other individuals who seek out osychological help and or counseling. I really do not think there is anything operating with her of a nature or degree that would be an extenuating factor in the vile act she is guilty of. I think her age is irrelevant and suspect she will remain highly dangerous. As for being on or off anti depressants, the term depression is a medical one which unfortunately is frequently used by GP's here in the UK which I do not believe is helpful, because it colludes with the person thinking of themselves as ill, when more often than not they are simply unhappy, angry, and simply have to be pinned against the wall in terms of their personal responsibility for the actions they commit however angry or unahppy they may be with the world. I think there is no excuse for her actions whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Feb 21, 2012 17:47:17 GMT -6
I'm all for sending her to a mental institution for the rest of her life.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 21, 2012 20:48:11 GMT -6
Doesn't matter if a murderer is "mentally ill" or not - if you send them to an "institution" for the rest of their lives - what's the point? Execute them. In the animal kingdom, the weak and inform are culled by their own so that genetic problems are wheedled out. I'm not saying we should kill the disabled - oh contraire - however, if they kill, they should be humanely destroyed regardless of their mental capacity. If they're clever enough to fire a gun or stab someone to death, they're clever enough to have a needle inserted in their arms. In todays society, there are too many people and you shouldnt get second chances if you've taken away someone else's only chance.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 21, 2012 22:31:17 GMT -6
I took SSRIs between 2005 and 2006. I was pretty loopy and went through a few phases of hysteria. I also lost a number of friends and bizarrely took up self mutilation as a hobby. I also gained about 55kgs. I just stopped taking the drugs. I did suffer from depression. I needed a friend not drugs. After my Aunt died of stomach cancer in the year 2000, I got depressed and ended up taking Prozac and Lorazapam. It helped me a great deal. It does help many people, but some meds are better for others. I think it is genetic makeup. I often wonder when people say certain drugs made them do it if they aren't taking the drugs as prescribed or they simply weren't taking them. Just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 23:38:05 GMT -6
After my Aunt died of stomach cancer in the year 2000, I got depressed and ended up taking Prozac and Lorazapam. It helped me a great deal. It does help many people, but some meds are better for others. I think it is genetic makeup. I often wonder when people say certain drugs made them do it if they aren't taking the drugs as prescribed or they simply weren't taking them. Just a thought. Think Charles Whitman. Mmmmm People blamed the brain tumor. It's understandable it would have made him feel unpleasant, but he wasn't a nice man to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 22, 2012 7:54:34 GMT -6
After my Aunt died of stomach cancer in the year 2000, I got depressed and ended up taking Prozac and Lorazapam. It helped me a great deal. It does help many people, but some meds are better for others. I think it is genetic makeup. I often wonder when people say certain drugs made them do it if they aren't taking the drugs as prescribed or they simply weren't taking them. Just a thought. You've a suspicious mind Stormy!
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 22, 2012 13:22:14 GMT -6
Doesn't matter if a murderer is "mentally ill" or not - if you send them to an "institution" for the rest of their lives - what's the point? Execute them. In the animal kingdom, the weak and inform are culled by their own so that genetic problems are wheedled out. I'm not saying we should kill the disabled - oh contraire - however, if they kill, they should be humanely destroyed regardless of their mental capacity. If they're clever enough to fire a gun or stab someone to death, they're clever enough to have a needle inserted in their arms. In todays society, there are too many people and you shouldnt get second chances if you've taken away someone else's only chance. So your view is that there are no extenuating circumstances ever. I doubt the majority of decent Americans would agree with you. Yes, I am sure the American public are sceptical and rightly so about the majority that would claim mental illness, but I doubt you would get a majority of them if they accepted that someone had a serious MI and that this was a real undisputed factor in the act they did, I dotn believe for a moment the majority would want that individual executed when they lacked capacity. Americans are to my mind much fairer than that.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 22, 2012 14:22:35 GMT -6
I often wondered when people say certain drugs made them do it, if they weren't taking the drugs as prescribed or they simply weren't taking them. Just a thought. Think Charles Whitman. Mmmmm People blamed the brain tumor. It's understandable it would have made him feel unpleasant, but he wasn't a nice man to begin with. I agree and I guess I should have been more clear. It isn't that I agree; but I just wonder if they were even taking their meds or the correct way, that they seem to blame for their actions? Has it ever been explained why she was on prozac and whatever else to begin with? Hope you understand my point?
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 22, 2012 15:30:13 GMT -6
Doesn't matter if a murderer is "mentally ill" or not - if you send them to an "institution" for the rest of their lives - what's the point? Execute them. In the animal kingdom, the weak and inform are culled by their own so that genetic problems are wheedled out. I'm not saying we should kill the disabled - oh contraire - however, if they kill, they should be humanely destroyed regardless of their mental capacity. If they're clever enough to fire a gun or stab someone to death, they're clever enough to have a needle inserted in their arms. In todays society, there are too many people and you shouldnt get second chances if you've taken away someone else's only chance. So your view is that there are no extenuating circumstances ever. I doubt the majority of decent Americans would agree with you. Yes, I am sure the American public are sceptical and rightly so about the majority that would claim mental illness, but I doubt you would get a majority of them if they accepted that someone had a serious MI and that this was a real undisputed factor in the act they did, I dotn believe for a moment the majority would want that individual executed when they lacked capacity. Americans are to my mind much fairer than that. I didnt mean to generalise - every case should be viewed on its own merits. However, if a perp is "aware" enough to play the MI card, they are aware of the consequences of their actions. Seems to me the MI card is only played AFTER the murderer has been charged with murder. Diminished responsibility should be argued in the first instance - and then its more a case of Catch 22 - if you claim to be crazy you mustnt be crazy. I doubt complete and utter loonies would be charged with murder in the first place and so would not face the death penalty - then they could get the help they need. However, those that pull the MI card on appeal, should not be spared the death penalty - mainly because its after the fact and they have already been found guilty of murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2012 0:16:55 GMT -6
Think Charles Whitman. Mmmmm People blamed the brain tumor. It's understandable it would have made him feel unpleasant, but he wasn't a nice man to begin with. I agree and I guess I should have been more clear. It isn't that I agree; but I just wonder if they were even taking their meds or the correct way, that they seem to blame for their actions? Has it ever been explained why she was on prozac and whatever else to begin with? Hope you understand my point? Maybe it has been explained. There has been successful lawsuits against ssri drug makers from a number of victims of violent acts of people who were taking the medication at the time. Anti psychotics and other similar drugs have hideous side effects. I can understand the reluctance to take them.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 23, 2012 15:33:20 GMT -6
Drugs shouldnt be a factor, I believe. Can you make a claim against the crack dealer if the assailant was using crackwhen they committed the crime? Can you sue the doctor who prescribed the drugs to the perp? For clarity, I think the order of events at trial are important - so that issues such as mental capacity or responsibility for actions should be addressed at first instance. None of this appealling after the fact when the issue has already been considered. For example, Mr X, on psychotic medication, kills someone. At the trial it should be established at that time, whether the person was responsible for their actions. If doubt exists, it should be at that time a decision is made as to the accused's culpability. If the effects of the medication or the accused's mental capacity is found to affect the person's mens rea, then they would not be found guilty of murder. If they are found guilty of murder, they cannot then appeal on the grounds of mental incapacity or diminished responsibility. No two bites of the cherry - if double jeopardy applies in favour of the accused, so too should factors already considered and decided upon in relation to mitigating circumstances. Surely, any litigations in regards to victim's compensation against drug manufacturers would be a civil matter and not related to the murder trial?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2012 2:27:50 GMT -6
I have never heard of that, but they occasionally prosecute dealers if it can be identified if they sold drugs to someone who then Overdosed.
I am not sure about Doctors but people have sued manufacturers of the drugs. This often relates to provide sufficient warnings about side effects which include the exaggeration of psychiatric symptoms. People have claimed that people of previously good character(which is uncontested) have committed criminal acts, and other disturbing acts due to taking such medication.
They believe that SSRI anti depressants, had a role on the Columbine massacre.
[/quote]
A persons mental state is considered around the time of the crime and arrest. If there is a question about it then is a preliminary. I remember when a woman killed her boyfriend and then called an acquaintance over to help eat him. The prosecution didn't argue about that woman's capacity. They generally don't. The defence has the burden of proof for an insanity plea and they must notify the prosecution if they wish to claim this or any diminished responsibility claim.
I would like for them to reduce the scope of "diminished responsiblity" as much as possible. Not just in terms of mental illness, but it gives defendants the incentive to defame the dead (ie - "my wife was having an affair, so I offed her" - usable, even when the wife was known not to have an affair), drunkeness, affected by drugs....
The only exception I would consider if is someone had their drink spiked (and it wasn't contested) or the deceased was known to have grossly treated the victim (not the resentful kid, killing for inheritance, but the kid who has been sexually abused by the deceased), and I wouldn't give anything like a free pass either.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 27, 2012 15:29:34 GMT -6
Sounds a little wrong to me. If the main thrust of the accused's defense relates to the accused's state of mind, then that should be dealt with in the first instance - then you would save all that time and effort of a trial. In a perfect world, I would like to see a streamlined path - arrest, assessment, trial, verdict, punishment. Appeals this and appeals that - rubbish - if the accused has been found guilty of murder without reasonable doubt - pack their bags and get 'em to fill out their last meal request. None of this 28 years on death row rubbish. In only the most exceptional cases would there be a digression from this process - and it better be a good reason. I dont subscribe to the argument that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual punishment" - we've been doing it to rabid dogs for years - 99% of the time lethal injection is more humane than the victim's fate. 100% of the time the murderer has not complained after being put to death - so how can it be "cruel and unusual punishment"? If the murderer is of diminished responsibility, that should have been decided at first, not because they fudge a Rorshach test 4 years down the track. It'd be like that Benny Hill sketch (pardon my droll) - A bloke sees naked women in every Rorscach ink blot and then blames the tester for drawing dirty pictures. No, for the sake of victim's justice and the heartache of the victim's family - streamline and standardise the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2012 17:25:20 GMT -6
The girl's writings alone should have condemned her to LWOP for the safety of people in the community. There is no cure for what she has. No pill.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jun 4, 2012 19:32:53 GMT -6
When she is paroled she will kill again; more carefully. If she got LWOP, it had better be a "true" LWOP with no appeals. Then she can't possibly be paroled or get an early release. I do not want to even consider the scenario that lets her back out.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jun 5, 2012 3:21:17 GMT -6
Felix, Bustamante was put on Prozac after a suicide attempt in 2007. The dose was doubled 2 weeks before she killed Elizabeth. The defense produced experts that said this could have caused her murderous behaviour. The prosecution produced experts that said the opposite. Sentencing is tomorrow. Rayozz, Currently I have a court pending over the death of a psychopath, his ex partner wants to sue me because of his suicide whebn I refused to section him. Their "independant psychiatrist produced a report saying I should as a precaution have sectioned him despite there being no evidence to warrant that, (he states there could have been underlying conditions), our second opinion has provided a report backing my decision making fully and for the sanme reasons, ie: where no evidence exixts of a condition one proceeds on the assumption there is none. With psychiatrists no two ever agree, and if you want to understand why they express a particular opinion then see who is paying for the report.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jun 5, 2012 3:31:50 GMT -6
As an addition to my original response I also understand The Green River Killer, Gary Rigway tried to stab a 6 year old to death when he was 16 "just to see what it was like". Coincidence? And is it just me or does this girl have Aileen Wournos's eyes? "So the killing of innocent people , no matter the cirumstance should be punishable by death? Is that your stance?" Well when you when you purposly plan out the murder, dig the graves and have all the time in the world for your consience to kick in and not even realize what you had done when it was over and even brag about it, then hell yes. That is first degree murder. Circumstances such as that are punishable by death in most states. I don't mean as in an accident or a fit of rage. I should have clarified that. Agree. What is with the correlation between mental illness and murder? Some seem to think that mental illness causes one to murder. Thousands of mentally ill folks in the US prove otherwise. Fortunate for us that the vast majority of mentally ill folks do not commit murder. The vast majority of non-mentally ill folks do not commit murder either. I would be curious to read the opinion of Felix on this question. Does being mentally make one more likely to commit murder? If so are all murderers mentally ill to some degree? Personally, I fail to see why mental illness is used as an excuse for murderous behavior. Is there a causal relationship? I agree the vast majority of seriously mentally ill people are abhorred at the thought of murder of doing harm to others, there is a small group we do know of who can pose a high risk, particularly those with command hallucinations. We know they present a high risk of attacking others or harming them because of the delusional beleifs they genuinely have as a result of their illness. Usually with the fol I know who have this particular condition the entire team is aware that when they begin to become ill we move quickly atan early stage (usually the patient understands the reason for this and co-operates), because we have already discussed relapse agreements with them when they are well, as such people rely on us to act on their behalf and keep them safe wehn they cannot. Those that so not have this insight, and cannot co-operate we use the force of the act to enforce compulsory ad mission for treatnment, justified by the risk profile they present..
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Aug 16, 2012 8:39:33 GMT -6
I remember hearing about that case when it happened,somthing on Facebook.....horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Aug 21, 2012 9:45:21 GMT -6
Felix, Bustamante was put on Prozac after a suicide attempt in 2007. The dose was doubled 2 weeks before she killed Elizabeth. The defense produced experts that said this could have caused her murderous behaviour. The prosecution produced experts that said the opposite. Sentencing is tomorrow. Rayozz, if you ever want 6 differing expert opinions I guarantee putting 6 psychiatrists on the one issue will produce that!
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Aug 21, 2012 9:49:21 GMT -6
So your view is that there are no extenuating circumstances ever. I doubt the majority of decent Americans would agree with you. Yes, I am sure the American public are sceptical and rightly so about the majority that would claim mental illness, but I doubt you would get a majority of them if they accepted that someone had a serious MI and that this was a real undisputed factor in the act they did, I dotn believe for a moment the majority would want that individual executed when they lacked capacity. Americans are to my mind much fairer than that. I didnt mean to generalise - every case should be viewed on its own merits. However, if a perp is "aware" enough to play the MI card, they are aware of the consequences of their actions. Seems to me the MI card is only played AFTER the murderer has been charged with murder. Diminished responsibility should be argued in the first instance - and then its more a case of Catch 22 - if you claim to be crazy you mustnt be crazy. I doubt complete and utter loonies would be charged with murder in the first place and so would not face the death penalty - then they could get the help they need. However, those that pull the MI card on appeal, should not be spared the death penalty - mainly because its after the fact and they have already been found guilty of murder. To be honest most people with a serious mental illness lack insight and would be the last complaining that they have a mental illness. I am always suspicios of individuals who approach me claiming to be mentally ill. They frequently deny any forensic history but I read the local press and frequently notice individuals in there I have just seen who denied any such involvement with police and courts, - then the penny drops,,,,,,,,,,,,,,again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 8:21:42 GMT -6
I often wonder when people say certain drugs made them do it if they aren't taking the drugs as prescribed or they simply weren't taking them. Just a thought. Think Charles Whitman. Mmmmm People blamed the brain tumor. It's understandable it would have made him feel unpleasant, but he wasn't a nice man to begin with. I'm not one for making excuses but isn't true that cause of a brain tumor people can get a complete changed personality? Cause the tumor pushes on certain parts of the brain? Correct me if I'm wrong please or can someone with a medical study please explain that to me?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Aug 22, 2012 9:40:05 GMT -6
Think Charles Whitman. Mmmmm People blamed the brain tumor. It's understandable it would have made him feel unpleasant, but he wasn't a nice man to begin with. I'm not one for making excuses but isn't true that cause of a brain tumor people can get a complete changed personality? Cause the tumor pushes on certain parts of the brain? Correct me if I'm wrong please or can someone with a medical study please explain that to me? You are absolutely correct. I have come accross many people who in accidents acquire a frontal lobe injury, it can and does change their whole personality. I have seen people go on to develop serious personality disorders from such injuries. Morally and ethically for me, if such a person then commits a seriosu offece such as murder, and it is secondary to such an unjury, I think that is a mitigating circumstance. I agree society may well need to be protected nertheless but dont feel that executing such an individual who had developed such a condition through no fault of their own should be punished with death. That says more to me about the deficits of the society that supports that punishment than it does about the individual.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Aug 22, 2012 16:41:27 GMT -6
You are absolutely correct. I have come accross many people who in accidents acquire a frontal lobe injury, it can and does change their whole personality. I have seen people go on to develop serious personality disorders from such injuries. Morally and ethically for me, if such a person then commits a seriosu offece such as murder, and it is secondary to such an unjury, I think that is a mitigating circumstance. It was worse than a frontal lobe tumor-it was a glioblastoma in the region of the amygdala. "An autopsy conducted upon the body of Charles Whitman—approved by his father—was performed at the Cook Funeral Home on August 2. The autopsy discovered a glioblastoma (a highly aggressive and invariably fatal brain tumor) in the hypothalamus (the white matter located above Whitman's brain stem).[66] This tumor would have proven fatal by the end of the year in which Whitman died. Experts on the subsequently-convened "Connally Commission" concluded the tumor may have played a significant role in Whitman's actions on August 1. The document also stated that this lesion "conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions."[14] Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor may have been pressed against the nearby amygdalae regions of his brain. The amygdalae are known to effect on fight/flight responses. This has led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, in addition to his personal and social frames of reference. " The fact is that his rampage was almost certainly the result of his disease. It doesn't make his actions any less tragic, but it does give more of a reason than most mass murders.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Aug 23, 2012 10:50:15 GMT -6
You are absolutely correct. I have come accross many people who in accidents acquire a frontal lobe injury, it can and does change their whole personality. I have seen people go on to develop serious personality disorders from such injuries. Morally and ethically for me, if such a person then commits a seriosu offece such as murder, and it is secondary to such an unjury, I think that is a mitigating circumstance. It was worse than a frontal lobe tumor-it was a glioblastoma in the region of the amygdala. "An autopsy conducted upon the body of Charles Whitman—approved by his father—was performed at the Cook Funeral Home on August 2. The autopsy discovered a glioblastoma (a highly aggressive and invariably fatal brain tumor) in the hypothalamus (the white matter located above Whitman's brain stem).[66] This tumor would have proven fatal by the end of the year in which Whitman died. Experts on the subsequently-convened "Connally Commission" concluded the tumor may have played a significant role in Whitman's actions on August 1. The document also stated that this lesion "conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions."[14] Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor may have been pressed against the nearby amygdalae regions of his brain. The amygdalae are known to effect on fight/flight responses. This has led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, in addition to his personal and social frames of reference. " The fact is that his rampage was almost certainly the result of his disease. It doesn't make his actions any less tragic, but it does give more of a reason than most mass murders. Was unaware of those details in this case, but it does raise the issue of accountability on a personal level for his prior actions with this in the background?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Aug 23, 2012 17:18:36 GMT -6
Was unaware of those details in this case, but it does raise the issue of accountability on a personal level for his prior actions with this in the background? He simply wasn't responsible for his actions due to his disease, and at any rate would have died of the tumor long before Texas could have executed him, had they decided to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 17:55:12 GMT -6
You are absolutely correct. I have come accross many people who in accidents acquire a frontal lobe injury, it can and does change their whole personality. I have seen people go on to develop serious personality disorders from such injuries. Morally and ethically for me, if such a person then commits a seriosu offece such as murder, and it is secondary to such an unjury, I think that is a mitigating circumstance. It was worse than a frontal lobe tumor-it was a glioblastoma in the region of the amygdala. "An autopsy conducted upon the body of Charles Whitman—approved by his father—was performed at the Cook Funeral Home on August 2. The autopsy discovered a glioblastoma (a highly aggressive and invariably fatal brain tumor) in the hypothalamus (the white matter located above Whitman's brain stem).[66] This tumor would have proven fatal by the end of the year in which Whitman died. Experts on the subsequently-convened "Connally Commission" concluded the tumor may have played a significant role in Whitman's actions on August 1. The document also stated that this lesion "conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and actions."[14] Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumor may have been pressed against the nearby amygdalae regions of his brain. The amygdalae are known to effect on fight/flight responses. This has led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks, in addition to his personal and social frames of reference. " The fact is that his rampage was almost certainly the result of his disease. It doesn't make his actions any less tragic, but it does give more of a reason than most mass murders. It's terrible that a disease can cause so much tragidies. It ruins your own life already and in this case it ruined so many more
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Sept 3, 2012 18:23:26 GMT -6
What do we do to the neighbors dog that bites kids more than once. We send that dog to the city pound to be put down. This is the way this girl should be handled, like a sick rabid dog that needs to be put down. Sucks to be her that her life was soo miserable that she got her rocks off with heinous crime. But that's how life is, is it her victims faults that her life sucked. So the girl needs to be gone and never given another chance to murder again. Too bad she is not eligible for capital punishment, because like the neighbors dog she needs to be put down
|
|