http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172824,00.html

After reading stories like this and those with similar content, my first reaction is to want to crush this woman's skull, the immediate next reaction is to want to give her a hug and get inside of her brain.

What are we doing (or not doing) as a society that causes mothers to discard their children like garbage in Bay? Is it because we do not value human life? I believe so.

What if the woman is hearing voices? Does that excuse her behavior? I think not.

I am one of the few conservatives that are against the death penalty. I believe the margin for error is too large and better to err on the side of life than death, BUT in these situations, eye for an eye comes to mind.

What are we doing (or not doing) as a society that causes mothers to discard their children like garbage in Bay? Is it because we do not value human life? I believe so.

This woman was poor, living in a shelter, and had her children in her late teens. She was/is clearly suffering a mental illness also. Society is not necessarily totally at fault for the problematic life of this "mother".

What if the woman is hearing voices?

Then she is an unstable human being who should have been reported by some people in the community so that the children could be taken into another persons custody while they underwent therapy to determine what is wrong with her so they can decide on the fate of the kids.

Does that excuse her behavior?

No, but it puts the murders in a different context. Someone with a severe mental disorder of some type and someone who willingly and in conscience killed her offspring are both different scenarios that need different things taken into consideration.

I am one of the few conservatives that are against the death penalty.

There are pluses and minuses to the death penalty, such as the money saved by not having to provide for that person in confinement, not having to expend money and time in court, and there are many psychotic criminals that often would get a bigger punishment from death then life in prison or solitary confinement for an extended period.
I am perpetually against the death penalty, but i do realize there are many sides to the argument. As should everyone, and a further examination of each viewpoint is needed. If anything, the death penalty needs to be used with much more restraint.

eye for an eye comes to mind.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind- Mohandas K. Gandhi ;)

As humans we act on our perceptions of reality. Each of us percieves reality a little differently, but normally that isn't a big problem. In the case of people with severe mental illness, it is a big problem. I had an aunt who lost her drivers license after she explained to the judge that she had the accident because she had turned around to defuse the bomb that whe weather underground had planted in the back seat of her car. She honestly believed that there was a bomb there. No one else could see that bomb. If there had been a bomb there, her actions would have been sensible. As it was, she needed help and most certainly to lose her drivers license. Fortunately no one was seriously hurt in that incident. She wound up in the hospital soon after that, and remained there until she died.
I would not find it possible to hold her criminally responsible for her actions, because she did not intend to hurt anyone. She lacked the ability to appreciate the consequences of her actions, and was not able to understand that her perceptions of reality were wildly at odds with what the rest of the world percieved.
The women who drowned her children may well have a similair degree of illness. If so, she needs to be hospitalized and not jailed. If she can improve with medication, she may be released. I'm sure the horror of realizing, if restored to sanity, that she killed her children would be the worst punishment that she could be given.

To Evakian

Then she is an unstable human being who should have been reported by some people in the community so that the children could be taken into another persons custody while they underwent therapy to determine what is wrong with her so they can decide on the fate of the kids.
I don't think we can rely on "someone" in the community to report her. It seems she was fairly poor and didn't live in the best of communities.

such as the money saved by not having to provide for that person in confinement
I believe it costs more to put someone to death. After all the court hearings and going through the legal system, it is far more costly then to just lock that person away for life. But this "reason" I don't think should be looked at what-so-ever...no matter who is right on how much money it costs, we should always see what is morally correct or justified first. I think to even bring this up is pointless for we are talking about putting someone to death...and money should not be involved in this.

As more information comes out about this story and the interviews with her family who KNEW she was hearing these voices and suffering schizophrenia, and were in the process of attempting to take custody of her children. Why wasn't something done in the interim?

It's harder to get a drivers lic. then it is to pop out baby's?

I don't think we can rely on "someone" in the community to report her. It seems she was fairly poor and didn't live in the best of communities.

Not a matter of reliance, but necessity. If we cannot rely on an individual within her neighborhood or that knows her to bring this up with authorities, then much is lost; regardless of wealth or quality of life in the community, someone who becomes aware of the situation has an obligation to take action.

I believe it costs more to put someone to death.

Which is most likely true, but that would rely more on the particular case, place, crime, and person.

After all the court hearings and going through the legal system, it is far more costly then to just lock that person away for life.

You've still many procedures to get through whether they are sentenced to life, and you can never be certain of the costs of the offender and how long such a person will live to need to be supported. And so on...

But this "reason" I don't think should be looked at what-so-ever...no matter who is right on how much money it costs, we should always see what is morally correct or justified first.

We both share the admirable respect for life, although i must comment that your views would not exactly make the best leadership decisions for people as a whole.

To Evakian

Not a matter of reliance, but necessity. If we cannot rely on an individual within her neighborhood or that knows her to bring this up with authorities, then much is lost; regardless of wealth or quality of life in the community, someone who becomes aware of the situation has an obligation to take action.
Like I said, the people in her community I doubt give a rats ass about her or her children and thus shows that we are living in a world of social decay.

Which is most likely true, but that would rely more on the particular case, place, crime, and person.
Of course, but in general I think it is less money to just lock them up for life.

although i must comment that your views would not exactly make the best leadership decisions for people as a whole.
Explanation?

Like I said, the people in her community I doubt give a rats ass about her or her children and thus shows that we are living in a world of social decay.

A study was done in New Orleans in an inner-city neighborhood. 400 rounds were fired off at spurts throughout the day and yet no one called the police that day in that area. How sad is that? :(

Of course, but in general I think it is less money to just lock them up for life.

But life in prison may be either a good punishment for them, or a terrible one they cower before. As you said, money is not an object in this situation ;)

Explanation?

Not executing a felon while simultaneously disregarding the amounts of public funding is not exactly the best way to look out for your people and community. And so on with other similar scenarios.

Money talks, and is an issue...sad or not to you, it does play a major role in our lives and even in a situation deciding on whether someone shall live or be executed. We do not have bottomless funds and unlimited time to deal with these things. And pending on the criminal, case, and the potential repercussions involved...things change.

To Evakian

Not executing a felon while simultaneously disregarding the amounts of public funding is not exactly the best way to look out for your people and community. And so on with other similar scenarios.
I think it is the obligation of our society, no matter how much it burdens us, to do what is correct.

Money talks, and is an issue...sad or not to you, it does play a major role in our lives and even in a situation deciding on whether someone shall live or be executed.
I never said it isn't an issue, I just said it shouldn't be an issue.

We do not have bottomless funds and unlimited time to deal with these things. And pending on the criminal, case, and the potential repercussions involved...things change.
I'd propose raising taxes in order to create the amount of funds we need to do what a society should do (IE: not use the death penalty)

I just have to wonder why she is always referred to as "the mother of the victims". Should'nt she be called "the alleged murderer of the victims"? It's almost as if the media is trying to make her a sympathetic figure, looking to assign blame everywhere but where it should lie.



Whatever her mental state is, she has murdered innocent children. Put her in an institution, because she obviously cannot function in society.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I just have to wonder why she is always referred to as "the mother of the victims". Should'nt she be called "the alleged murderer of the victims"? It's almost as if the media is trying to make her a sympathetic figure, looking to assign blame everywhere but where it should lie.


This is no different than the terrorists attacking our troops and civilians being referred to as insurgents. A gross misuse of words in an effort to have the audience look at the situations without correct understanding.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I just have to wonder why she is always referred to as "the mother of the victims". Should'nt she be called "the alleged murderer of the victims"? It's almost as if the media is trying to make her a sympathetic figure, looking to assign blame everywhere but where it should lie.

I agree Havok, a mother is a person that fends for her children not one that kills them. With that said don't ya just love the media:)?



Whatever her mental state is, she has murdered innocent children. Put her in an institution, because she obviously cannot function in society.

If her mental state was normal then that would make her a coldhearted killer. If she does have a problem then she should be put into an institution. It would seem to me then once she realized what she had done it would cause even more mental unstability. Does anyone know if she was on street drugs?

I have no idea if she was on street drugs, but the reports I have seen have indicated that she was a shizophrenic who had stopped taking her medicine.

Mentally ill or not, if the woman realized /realizes her actions were wrong (and the fact that she's now under a suicide watch indicates this is so) then she is sane under the law, and should be punished accordingly.

Andrea Yates was also "mentally ill" yet waited until her husband left the house before she drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub. Clearly indicating aforethought.

The more bizarre the crime, the less a jury is likely to buy an "insanity" defense. Aren't most true schizophrenics nonviolent anyway?

A terrible, sad case but my sympathy lies with the dead kids.

Originally posted by rendova
Mentally ill or not, if the woman realized /realizes her actions were wrong (and the fact that she's now under a suicide watch indicates this is so) then she is sane under the law, and should be punished accordingly.

The fact that she's under a suicide watch has more to do with the mental state of her guards, than the mental state of the person guarded.


Andrea Yates was also "mentally ill" yet waited until her husband left the house before she drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub. Clearly indicating aforethought.

Premeditation does not equal sanity.


The more bizarre the crime, the less a jury is likely to buy an "insanity" defense. Aren't most true schizophrenics nonviolent anyway?

Most drunks don't kill people either.


A terrible, sad case but my sympathy lies with the dead kids.

I have sympathy for the children. I also have enough sympathy left over for the woman who committed this act while in the grip of a terrible mental illness. I'm sure once she was in custody they gave her some medication, and that's the reason for the suicide watch. She's sane now.

If she was, as has been reported, a schizophrenic who had stopped taking her drugs, the first thing that would happen in jail is that she would be put back on those drugs. This might well help her to realize the reality of what she did. A suicide watch is reasonable, and may well indicate that she is sane now. It does not indicate in any way what her state of mind was when she drowned her children.

Originally posted by Imagineer
If she was, as has been reported, a schizophrenic who had stopped taking her drugs, the first thing that would happen in jail is that she would be put back on those drugs. This might well help her to realize the reality of what she did. A suicide watch is reasonable, and may well indicate that she is sane now. It does not indicate in any way what her state of mind was when she drowned her children.
Good post Imagineer. I agree 100 and 10%! ahhahaha

Originally posted by Imagineer
I have no idea if she was on street drugs, but the reports I have seen have indicated that she was a shizophrenic who had stopped taking her medicine.

Thanks Imagineer, it sounds like she has major mental problems. It is a shame the system and society let these kids down, the question is will society learn fom this, I highly doubt it :(.

Originally posted by rendova
Mentally ill or not, if the woman realized /realizes her actions were wrong (and the fact that she's now under a suicide watch indicates this is so) then she is sane under the law, and should be punished accordingly.

What if she did this while off of her meds, and is now back on her meds and is realizing what happened? Is she trying to commit suicide because of being locked up or because of what she did?

Andrea Yates was also "mentally ill" yet waited until her husband left the house before she drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub. Clearly indicating aforethought.

I agree with you on this one she had a plan or atleast it seemed that way.

A terrible, sad case but my sympathy lies with the dead kids.

I also feel the same way, but we still need to understand why women are doing these horrible things with their children.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The fact that she's under a suicide watch has more to do with the mental state of her guards, than the mental state of the person guarded.

The people in charge will place this type of person on suicide watch even if they are not suicidal. This is a precaution taken to protect the jail. Some jails place public drunks{or drugers} on suicide watch when they are arrested. I quess prevention can sometimes be the best cure.



Premeditation does not equal sanity.

True, but it does show the person did not just do the crime at a whim. They had to plan what they were going to do and did have time to get help.



Most drunks don't kill people either.

This is why I asked if she had taken street drugs because certain drugs can affect folks in different ways. I had a friend that was a great person to be around but when they did hits of acid they turned into a beast{mean and nasty}. The thing with drugs are, if you know you'll act bad and could possibly hurt another then it is your fault. If she is insane then it is harder to hold her completely responsible.



I have sympathy for the children. I also have enough sympathy left over for the woman who committed this act while in the grip of a terrible mental illness. I'm sure once she was in custody they gave her some medication, and that's the reason for the suicide watch. She's sane now.

Is she really capable of being completely sane? If she can be sane on drugs then why did she stop taking her meds? If she knew she could cause harm while not on her meds then should society hold her responsible for her actions? There are lots of unanswered questions, it is a little soon to burn her at the stake. BUT it still shouldn't be ruled out either.

Originally posted by mad dog
The people in charge will place this type of person on suicide watch even if they are not suicidal. This is a precaution taken to protect the jail. Some jails place public drunks{or drugers} on suicide watch when they are arrested. I quess prevention can sometimes be the best cure.

I understand that, which is why I posted that the fact she was on a suicide watch had little to do with her mental state.

More on this and the difficulty in proving an insanity defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/24/children.bay.ap/index.html


I have a question. Why is it that when people supposedly hear voices, these voices never tell a person to go work in a homeless shelter? to take a kid for a bike ride? to go pick up the trash along a roadside?


Why do the "voices" always tell a person to kill?

Frankly, I find her story ludicrous. Maybe she just ought to say that she just didn't want the kids around anymore?

This appears to me to be yet another instance of passing along responsibilty to something/someone else--in this case--voices, or, even worse,
"society."

Society and/or "voices" did not kill those kids.
She did.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan
[B]The fact that she's under a suicide watch has more to do with the mental state of her guards, than the mental state of the person guarded.



Premeditation does not equal sanity.



Yes, but Andrea Yates also had the aforethought to stop taking her medicine, as did this woman.
Which makes me wonder how truly "insane" the two of them were.

The sad thing is that individuals do not treat mental illness the way other illnesses are treated.


Mental illness is not given the attention it deserves. I mean even the churches shy away from the issues. Family and friends often get worn out by the consent care an individual with mental illnesses will often need in order to asses if their meds are working and it also requires constant communication with the Doctors and other care providers that may be involved

In a lot of instances it is better if the family has no funds so that the individual ends up on the states case load. Then the sick individual can be mandated by the courts to take their meds. Getting an individual Mandated by the courts is a last resort and very hard to do. As a matter of fact, most families have no idea that it can be done until something happens and their love one has committed some type of criminal act

The sad thing is that no one is really looking at helping the individual when the courts step into have an individual mandated. They just want to keep them out of the jails and prison system. not because it is the right thing to do but because it is the cheap thing to do.
An individual who voluntarily goes off meds is responsible for their actions because they chose to live in an altered mental state that they could have prevented by taking their medication.
If this lady was on her meds during the time of the incident that changes the whole ball game.

why go off meds
dMeds make individuals lethargic
The meds are not working and individuals see no use in taking some thing that dose not work for them
It takes a lot of trial and error to get the dosage of some meds correct
Fears such as addiction to the medication
Sexual side affect that can affect marital life

Most of the things listed above could be treated by having a good relationship with the care givers, but individuals ant to treat mental illness like it is a head ace take a med and its all better not tweaking needed and that is just not so with mental illness.

Vile I quoted you because I was agreeing and also trying to add that the media loves to print things that sometimes have no bearing.

Originally posted by rendova
[I have a question. Why is it that when people supposedly hear voices, these voices never tell a person to go work in a homeless shelter? to take a kid for a bike ride? to go pick up the trash along a roadside?

It's because only bad voices can be heard the good voices don't give a hoot :D


Why do the "voices" always tell a person to kill?


Remeber Son Of Sam he talked to the dog it told him to kill. I don't think this was true I think the dog said beggin bits. Maybe the ones hearing the voices are deaf or aren't speaking the right language :D

Frankly, I find her story ludicrous. Maybe she just ought to say that she just didn't want the kids around anymore?

If she said this then how would she be able to get of on an insanity plea?

This appears to me to be yet another instance of passing along responsibilty to something/someone else--in this case--voices, or, even worse,
"society."

Isn't it funny how some won't except Christ or a God in the sky, but they'll turn around and except a killers story about hearing voices. Maybe science should come into play in cases like this base justice on facts not emotions?

Society and/or "voices" did not kill those kids.
She did.

You are correct she did the deed but didn't society let these kids down also? There were people that said she was unstable so why didn't anyone help?

Originally posted by mad dog
Vile I quoted you because I was agreeing and also trying to add that the media loves to print things that sometimes have no bearing.



It's because only bad voices can be heard the good voices don't give a hoot :D





Remeber Son Of Sam he talked to the dog it told him to kill. I don't think this was true I think the dog said beggin bits. Maybe the ones hearing the voices are deaf or aren't speaking the right language :D



If she said this then how would she be able to get of on an insanity plea?



Isn't it funny how some won't except Christ or a God in the sky, but they'll turn around and except a killers story about hearing voices. Maybe science should come into play in cases like this base justice on facts not emotions?



You are correct she did the deed but didn't society let these kids down also? There were people that said she was unstable so why didn't anyone help?

I don't know if "society" let her down, MD. Short of tying her down and force-feeding her her medicine, what in god's name could they do?
Her family and friends have said that they didn't think she was capable of such a thing, which indicates that even they didn't think she was that "crazy"---her comment about "Feeding the kids to the sharks" was absolutely chilling but maybe they thought she was joking??!!

Yes, good old Son of Sam and his dog story really took the cake. It's a wonder the lawyers could even keep a straight face when they heard THAT one..gosh, next time our neighbors get on my nerves, or somebody at the grocery store, I'll just kill them and then say that
"Voices" or our CAT told me to do it..just think, somebody would actually believe that!

Originally posted by rendova
I don't know if "society" let her down, MD. Short of tying her down and force-feeding her her medicine, what in god's name could they do?
Her family and friends have said that they didn't think she was capable of such a thing, which indicates that even they didn't think she was that "crazy"---her comment about "Feeding the kids to the sharks" was absolutely chilling but maybe they thought she was joking??!!

Yes, good old Son of Sam and his dog story really took the cake. It's a wonder the lawyers could even keep a straight face when they heard THAT one..gosh, next time our neighbors get on my nerves, or somebody at the grocery store, I'll just kill them and then say that
"Voices" or our CAT told me to do it..just think, somebody would actually believe that!
I do not believe that this was her first violent act. I t will be interesting to see if the papers report other instances of violence committed by this lady.

Originally posted by Researcher
I do not believe that this was her first violent act, and It will be interesting to see if the papers report piror instances of violence committed by this lady.

Originally posted by rendova
More on this and the difficulty in proving an insanity defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/24/children.bay.ap/index.html


I have a question. Why is it that when people supposedly hear voices, these voices never tell a person to go work in a homeless shelter? to take a kid for a bike ride? to go pick up the trash along a roadside?


Why do the "voices" always tell a person to kill?

Frankly, I find her story ludicrous. Maybe she just ought to say that she just didn't want the kids around anymore?

This appears to me to be yet another instance of passing along responsibilty to something/someone else--in this case--voices, or, even worse,
"society."

Society and/or "voices" did not kill those kids.
She did.


Rendova, clearly you have never dealt with anyone close to you who suffers from shizophrenia. It is a horrible disease, and one that is often misunderstood. It makes no more sense to blame the shizophrenic for their disease than it does to blame a woman for getting breast cancer.
Unfortunately, this disease makes many people very uncomfortable because our ability to think is so important to who we are as humans. We are afraid of losing control of our ability to think.
This is an interesting article on the physical changes to the brain of schizophrenics.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/schiz.brain.htm

Unfortunately we do not understand the causes of the changes in the brains of those suffering from schizophrenia. Our understanding of the disease is limited. We do not understand why people get it, but the rates a very similair acroall over the world. We do not know of any particulair environmental factors in this disease, and the cause is unknown. This is a good article on the incidence rate of shizophrenia.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=421751

What is needed is more research on the causes and possible treatments for this disease.

Originally posted by Imagineer
Rendova, clearly you have never dealt with anyone close to you who suffers from shizophrenia. It is a horrible disease, and one that is often misunderstood. It makes no more sense to blame the shizophrenic for their disease than it does to blame a woman for getting breast cancer.
Unfortunately, this disease makes many people very uncomfortable because our ability to think is so important to who we are as humans. We are afraid of losing control of our ability to think.
This is an interesting article on the physical changes to the brain of schizophrenics.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/schiz.brain.htm

Unfortunately we do not understand the causes of the changes in the brains of those suffering from schizophrenia. Our understanding of the disease is limited. We do not understand why people get it, but the rates a very similair acroall over the world. We do not know of any particulair environmental factors in this disease, and the cause is unknown. This is a good article on the incidence rate of shizophrenia.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=421751

What is needed is more research on the causes and possible treatments for this disease.

Yes, it is a disease, Imagineer, and I am not arguing that the woman is not ill, nor that she may indeed be delusional, which is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

What I am arguing is that she may not be insane UNDER THE LAW.

The McNaughton Rules clearly lay down the tenets of what is considered "Insanity", which is a legal term, not a medical term. Surely people see the need for the line to be drawn somewhere? Some might say these laws are far too broad, considering the many and varying forms of mental illness. Yet, to me, they have worked, and continue to work, in showing if a defendant understands the nature of their acts, and if they are wrong...her statement about "feeding the kids to the sharks" indicates that she understood the nature of her actions.

Whether she realized that her actions were wrong will come out at her trial.

California is one of several states which has quite stringent tests in order to prove or disprove insanity.

If she has no remorse then what do we do with her? If she does seem to have remorse but is stilll proven to be sick what do we do with her then? Also is someone that is sick going to get a fair trial under our system, or is it just a group of jurors giving their uneducated quess? Is it fair for a person with schizophrenia to be judged by people that may not know a thing about the disease?