Woman calls 911, says she strangled autistic children [Archive]

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-23-10, 01:00 AM

While August's comments are quite correct, the point I was making is that attempting to kill someone with one method, and when that method does not work, switching to another method makes it hard to use the insanity (I did not know that what I was doing was wrong) defense. That and her voluntary statement (no Miranda concerns here) that she killed them because she did not want autistic children, will seal her fate.

I don't think a Texas jury will buy an insanity defense on this one. :nope:

Insanity has far more variety than complete normality or complete incoherence. It is all very well to fire condemnation in a blind, normative fashion at a case of infanticide, but somehow I doubt any of you complainers here are:
1) Autistics (presumably of the "High Functioning" variety or you won't be functional enough to type)
2) Relatives (especially parents) of autistics.

Being someone diagnosed with "autistic tendencies" back in the late 80s, I can confirm the common medical opinion that it is in fact incurable. Though extensive "early intervention" (I think this was before Lovaas technique or any of the newer ones) worked well enough I marginally fit in society, I can count countless cases of minor social faux pas, auditory handling difficulties ... etc and though I like the fact that I can look at many things in our society in ways that my "neurotypical" brethren cannot, I can definitely conclude that overall life as an autistic is no bowl of cherries, and I'm probably on the very edge of autism, any better and it'll likely have gone undiagnosed entirely.

Now, consider how much "fun" it'll be to be parenting such kids, trying to bludgeon them into some semblance of normality or at least of limited independence. Without having experienced the actual despair and hopelessness of this entire enterprise, un-objective normative "blindfire" lambasting of this tragedy does no one any good.

CCIP

07-23-10, 03:38 AM

Now, consider how much "fun" it'll be to be parenting such kids, trying to bludgeon them into some semblance of normality or at least of limited independence. Without having experienced the actual despair and hopelessness of this entire enterprise, un-objective normative "blindfire" lambasting of this tragedy does no one any good.

It really is difficult, and I think it takes a lot of support for people raising autistic kinds to really make it through. I think there is no question that while what the mother did is extremely wrong, I don't think we can immediately assume full responsibility and blame here. There has got to be more to the story, and she should never have been allowed to get to such a state. She failed, but somewhere somehow I am sure that someone had failed her too.

I lost a severely autistic cousin this year and this was really devastating for the entire family. She had really given me a sense of how really life-changing it is to have an autistic child in the family, both in good and bad ways. To say they are difficult to deal with is an understatement. To say they are not able to have a good life in the care of a family is also untrue, but only if the family supports each other in the endeavour - this is extremely hard work. For my cousin, it meant 24/7 work. It literally turned her mother's (i.e. my aunt's) entire life almost 180 degrees - she had to start on a completely new career and education path, and in fact a whole side of my family revolved around my autistic cousin for the 11 years of her life. She gave everyone a sort of center for attention and care. Tragically, she died in an accident 5 months ago, in part due to a minute lapse in that 24/7 supervision she needed.

As for this case, no dispute that this is homicide. But I personally hope for a term of non-optional medical and psychiatric care for the mother rather than punishment. Her future life needs to be monitored. I don't think the society stands to gain anything from throwing this woman in jail and removing her from the streets. She probably poses more danger to herself now than to anyone else.

Skybird

07-23-10, 04:05 AM

Exactly. Crimes like this are by definition "insane" but that shouldn't become a ticket to escape paying for it.

True, but I would start even earlier and say it is insane what kind of couples under what kind of conditions sometimes have children. Some people simply should not have kids, nor should they have pets are be allowed to drive cars.

You can't rehabilitate a sociopath.

True again - if only so many socially engaged helpers and psychologists and sociologists would not deny it and accept big risks for the general public in attempts of doing social engineering on such individuals inn order to prove the expertise of theior profession. Not all of them, maybe not even a majority of professionals are like this - but still too many, for my taste, especially in contexts of judicial assessments. The dangers of certain persons and personalities get minimised, ignored or whitewashed too often, for my taste.

Tribesman

07-23-10, 06:07 AM

Some people simply should not have kids, nor should they have pets are be allowed to drive cars.

Sounds like an old quote about racial hygiene, has sky been at My Struggle again?

Jimbuna

07-23-10, 06:13 AM

As for this case, no dispute that this is homicide. But I personally hope for a term of non-optional medical and psychiatric care for the mother rather than punishment. Her future life needs to be monitored. I don't think the society stands to gain anything from throwing this woman in jail and removing her from the streets. She probably poses more danger to herself now than to anyone else.

I'm very sorry for your loss....your words in quotes struck a chord in me though.

My wife has a cousin who gave birth to a child with autism and I have witnessed the distress and pressures suddenly affecting so many peoples lives. She is lucky I suppose in the sense that Social Services are supporting her with professional care, day care and regular respite etc.

One major underlying factor never changes though....her child is as deeply loved and valued as those of her other two children, despite the constant challenges she displays.

Yes your right, this women desperately needs help but seeing as how she made at least two attempts to commit the crime it is more than likely the act was premeditaed.

I hope she gets the help she needs but I think that will happen in an environment/establishment that has bars on its windows.

NeonSamurai

07-23-10, 09:54 AM

Sounds more like the continuation of one act, she tried to poison them, failed, then strangled them.

Anyhow... first off the woman is not a sociopath. If she was, the kids would not have lived as long. No sociopath would spend years looking after autistic kids, they would have arranged to get rid of the kids very rapidly, and more "accidentally".

Also I think insanity is a valid defense in this case. She from what I read did not show any rational behavior during the incident. There was no premeditation, no attempt at cover-up, concealment, or denial, she apparently called the police right after and confessed in a toneless voice. I would bet that she did not have the social support network of family & friends to help to look after these kids. Most extended families struggle just to look after one severely autistic child in the greater family.

She obviously did care for those children, or they would not have reached the ages of 2 and 5. I think the major cause was she did not have the resources necessary to care for these children, either financially, socially, or emotionally. The pressure of it with I am sure large helpings of despair and hopelessness triggered this psychotic episode (she snapped).

Anyhow I don't feel that she should be held to blame from what I know of the situation. She was in an impossible position from the sounds of it, and broke under the strain psychologically.

frau kaleun

07-23-10, 10:12 AM

Given that the youngest child was only 2, it's also possible that this woman suffered from some kind of post-partum psychological disorder (depression, anxiety, even psychosis) that went untreated and/or spiralled way out of control. If so, the fact that the children were autistic and presumably required a level of care that even a healthy mother would struggle with certainly wouldn't have helped matters.

In any case, a truly heart-wrenching story.

AVGWarhawk

07-23-10, 10:14 AM

My wife and I have friends with two children with autism and one child that does not exhibit autism. There are many days of trials and tribulations with the two. When the third child was born without signs of autism both exclaimed that they now know what it is like to experience a normal child. Autism is a life long commitment. This they realize as parents. It is a tough situation were state assistance is pretty much nonexistent. The public schools are not much help and it is tough depending on the severity of the autism. I concur, throwing this woman in jail does no good. She needs help. It is unfortunate it ended this way.

Aramike

07-23-10, 11:50 AM

She obviously did care for those children, or they would not have reached the ages of 2 and 5. I think the major cause was she did not have the resources necessary to care for these children, either financially, socially, or emotionally. The pressure of it with I am sure large helpings of despair and hopelessness triggered this psychotic episode (she snapped).

Anyhow I don't feel that she should be held to blame from what I know of the situation. She was in an impossible position from the sounds of it, and broke under the strain psychologically. There's no way I can agree with any of this. Just imagine what would happen to society when we start giving people passes for extremely sociopathic behavior simply because they "snapped".

"I couldn't handle it anymore," is not a valid excuse for killing anyone.

The bottom line is this: if you can't handle the everyday stressors of life in a lawful society to the point which you're a danger to other members of it, than you have no business being free to enjoy its benefits, and for the sake of the society itself, at a MININUM you should be removed from it.

conus00

07-23-10, 11:57 AM

Exactly. Crimes like this are by definition "insane" but that shouldn't become a ticket to escape paying for it. If it happened like the article says then, crazy or not, I say put her in a cell and weld the door shut. You can't rehabilitate a sociopath.

I'd almost agree with you. Your solution though presents a problem for taxpayers (i.e. you and me). Why we should pay for incarceration of such a monster for the rest of her pathetic life. Just get rid of her. But not any humane way: strangle her!

Eye for eye... :nope:

August

07-23-10, 01:49 PM

Why we should pay for incarceration

I used to support the death penalty but I've come to realize that the government just cannot be trusted with such power. It is just too easily misused.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-23-10, 07:10 PM

There's no way I can agree with any of this. Just imagine what would happen to society when we start giving people passes for extremely sociopathic behavior simply because they "snapped".

"I couldn't handle it anymore," is not a valid excuse for killing anyone.

The bottom line is this: if you can't handle the everyday stressors of life in a lawful society to the point which you're a danger to other members of it, than you have no business being free to enjoy its benefits, and for the sake of the society itself, at a MININUM you should be removed from it.

Though I won't go so far as to say that this is actually an acceptable act, let me put it this way. Trying to raise two autistic children is not exactly a "everyday stressor", and trying to pretend it is says more about you than anything else.

NeonSamurai

07-23-10, 08:42 PM

There's no way I can agree with any of this. Just imagine what would happen to society when we start giving people passes for extremely sociopathic behavior simply because they "snapped".

Before you start throwing around psychological terms, how bout you first find out what they actually mean. From what little I know about the case, she does not fit that category of a sociopath (Antisocial Personality Disorder) at all.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Please tell me which features she is displaying that would classify her as being one.

"I couldn't handle it anymore," is not a valid excuse for killing anyone.

The bottom line is this: if you can't handle the everyday stressors of life in a lawful society to the point which you're a danger to other members of it, than you have no business being free to enjoy its benefits, and for the sake of the society itself, at a MININUM you should be removed from it.

Have you ever met or had to deal with people with autism, particularly severe autism? A lot of people if they can afford it will have the person committed as they are incredibly difficult to look after in more severe cases (particularly as they get older, bigger, and stronger) and need constant monitoring as they are often a danger to themselves (and others if big enough). She had 2 autistic kids to deal with, though we don't know any details about the level of autism the kids had. Regardless it was not even close to an everyday stressor, even if there were absolutely no other problems in her life, raising 2 autistic kids would be very challenging.

Anyhow I don't think that the woman should be held legally accountable in this case at the moment. The evidence available to me so far suggests this was not at all a rational or controlled act on her part, but brought on by a psychotic episode likely triggered by the environment she was in, and the problems she was facing (with the possibility of comorbidity with other underlying disorder(s)). I do however think she will need extensive counseling and to spend time in a mental institution.

At least this is my view for the moment with the evidence. I'm not ready to lynch her until all the facts are in and it becomes more obvious this was a sane act. Right now it has all the hallmarks of not being a sane act, though I don't know if it meets the legal definition. Then again I am not sure I fully agree with the legal definition.

Aramike

07-23-10, 10:05 PM

Though I won't go so far as to say that this is actually an acceptable act, let me put it this way. Trying to raise two autistic children is not exactly a "everyday stressor", and trying to pretend it is says more about you than anything else. Perhaps not an everyday stressor, but it certainly isn't the most stressful lifestyle there is.

And it's no excuse for murdering children.

August

07-23-10, 10:16 PM

Please tell me which features she is displaying that would classify her as being one

How about?

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

She killed her kids because they didn't meet her standards. You're saying that's not a sign of sociopath?

And BTW how do you know these kids were actually autistic?

Aramike

07-23-10, 10:16 PM

Before you start throwing around psychological terms, how bout you first find out what they actually mean. From what little I know about the case, she does not fit that category of a sociopath (Antisocial Personality Disorder) at all.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Please tell me which features she is displaying that would classify her as being one.Before you start with the typical condescending message board semantics retort, how bout you first read what was actually written?

I said she displayed sociopathic behavior - not that she was a sociopath. And if you read the article and the behaviors displayed by a sociopath you'd be able to make the connection yourself.

Secondly, I am not a pshrink. Are you? And if you are one, how can you justify stating, as a fact, that this woman is not a sociopath?

I mean, surely you know that MANY sociopaths lead seemingly normal lives. It is not out of the realm of possibility (in fact, it's not even terribly uncommon) that sociopaths care for children, so long as that childcare can be a means to whatever end the sociopath considers important.

http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html (http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html[quote]http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html)
WHEN YOU SAY THE WORD "sociopath" most people think of serial killers. But although many serial killers are sociopaths, there are far more sociopaths leading ordinary lives. Chances are you know a sociopath. I say "ordinary lives," but what they do is far from ordinary. Sociopaths are people without a conscience. They don't have the normal empathy the rest of us take for granted. They don't feel affection. They don't care about others. But most of them are good observers, and they have learned how to mimic feelings of affection and empathy remarkably well.

This is something that anyone with even a brief primer in psychology knows. So next time you want to criticize someone's use of a psychological term, maybe you should do more than a cursory internet search to figure out what it means.

Would you like to borrow my copy of DSM IV?

Aramike

07-23-10, 10:17 PM

Nicely done, August. :salute:

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-23-10, 11:12 PM

Perhaps not an everyday stressor, but it certainly isn't the most stressful lifestyle there is.

And it's no excuse for murdering children.

While I will agree it is not worth a full mitigation, just to ascertain which page you are on, name me at least two long term plausible lifestyles that you would rate as more stressful.

How about?

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

She killed her kids because they didn't meet her standards. You're saying that's not a sign of sociopath?

And BTW how do you know these kids were actually autistic?

OK, let me put it this way: If we find out they don't have autism or other developmental problems, and the mother knows it or should know it, then I'll join you in the condemnation. Right now, the best information is in the other direction, so we proceed on the assumption they are autistic.

For the rest of it, I'll just point out that a battle lost is not the same as it never having been fought.

Aramike

07-24-10, 03:03 AM

While I will agree it is not worth a full mitigation, just to ascertain which page you are on, name me at least two long term plausible lifestyles that you would rate as more stressful.

Gee ... hate on Sarah Palin all you want, but her lifestyle comes to mind. Would you give her a pass if she would have killed her children in a sociopathic fit of rage, precisely similar to this incident?

Of course not.

Secondly, pick a police officer with 3 autistic children. That's my neighbor. Or the guy across the street from me who runs several youth football leagues. Or another friend of mine who is in Iraq and leaves four children behind (while his wife remains to raise them).

It's amazing the weight that liberals apply to certain stressors when it excuses someone of a crime. Scratch that, that's not particularly amazing. What IS incredible is the blind way that any adversity the perpetuator faces is automatically valued as worse than any other.

I'm pretty sure that, should the story had been the same regarding any high stress situation, those of you defending the woman in question would have found an excuse all the same.

And, that is the problem.

In your minds, its okay to KILL A CHILD, just because that child is making life difficult ... perhaps even extraordinarily so. In my mind, that is NOT excusable, or okay.

Our differences in value systems are so clearly separated that, quite frankly, I see no point in discussing it further (hell, one person has already attempted to mischaracterize "sociopath" in order to fit his agenda). You can attempt justify the killing of two CHILDREN any way you'd like - I will not cease to see that as a fine example of intense depravity, brought on by a sickening need to understand the criminal despite the loss of the victim.

But let me play ball one last time: you want "two long term plausible lifestyles" that are more stressful. I could give 100. But "stressful" is a matter of opinion.

In any case, let me ask you one simple question: do you believe that, in the case of raising multiple autistic children, it is acceptable to KILL them once you find it to become too difficult?
OK, let me put it this way: If we find out they don't have autism or other developmental problems, and the mother knows it or should know it, then I'll join you in the condemnation. Right now, the best information is in the other direction, so we proceed on the assumption they are autistic.
Oh wait, you've already answered that.

Case closed.

Announcement: According to KS II, it's okay to kill your autistic children because it might be too difficult to raise them. Contact him for legal assistance.

PS: Does it even strike you how ridiculous that is?

Platapus

07-24-10, 07:03 AM

It's amazing the weight that liberals

You lost me there. What does this have to do with politics? Is everything to you a "liberal" / "conservative" thing.

You might have had some good information in your post. But as soon as you threw down a political generalization, you lost credibility. :nope:

Tribesman

07-24-10, 07:24 AM

But as soon as you threw down a political generalization, you lost credibility.
I thought all credibility was lost when he wrote.

In your minds, its okay to KILL A CHILD,

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-24-10, 07:42 AM

Gee ... hate on Sarah Palin all you want, but her lifestyle comes to mind. Would you give her a pass if she would have killed her children in a sociopathic fit of rage, precisely similar to this incident?

Of course not.

Not being an American, I've heard of this Palin's name occasionally but beyond that know extremely little about her. Glancing at her entry in Wikipedia if she killed her kids tomorrow I see no reason to grant her a mitigation - is there something I missed?

Secondly, pick a police officer with 3 autistic children. That's my neighbor.

That's a valid candidate. Even assuming he and his family is excellently supported, however, personally I find it amazing that you can have such a neighbor and still have equated raising autistic children as a "everyday stressor", or somewhat less amazingly, to the two cases below.

Anyway, if he snaps and kills his children tomorrow (or perhaps he takes the stress out on some poor perp on the street), it won't make it right, but I will give due mitigation for this, and will also spray appropriate blame on his police department, who is supposed to watch their officers for early warning signs.

Or the guy across the street from me who runs several youth football leagues. Or another friend of mine who is in Iraq and leaves four children behind (while his wife remains to raise them).

Perhaps I don't have enough neighboring experiences to either of these to give them full credit, but while I appreciate these two's efforts, I must say I can't equate either of these to either the woman in the article or your police officer friend.

What is certainly, undeniably true is that these two chose their stressors. Certainly your soldier friend knew that when he enlisted there is a high probability he would be sent to fight somewhere (in fact that's what he's paid for), whether he has kids or not... to be blunt if he loses control and sprays some Iraqi with 5.56mm bullets tomorrow, I will NOT be sympathetic. As for your friend running the youth football leagues, he's doing good work but I'll think he's volunteering to do so as well, or it is his paid job?

It's amazing the weight that liberals apply to certain stressors when it excuses someone of a crime. Scratch that, that's not particularly amazing. What IS incredible is the blind way that any adversity the perpetuator faces is automatically valued as worse than any other.

I don't know if I'm a liberal, but what I find more incredible is that you are normatively blindfiring without any consideration of any adverse factors, or that your inability to recognize there are such things as intermediate positions between a blindfire condemnation and a free pass.

I'm pretty sure that, should the story had been the same regarding any high stress situation, those of you defending the woman in question would have found an excuse all the same.

The vicious branding of all possible high stress situations as "excuses" would seem to suggest a lack of empathy on your part. Since lack of empathy is just about the central tenet sociopathy, by your rules of trying to decide to accuse someone of sociopathy based on extremely limited information, would this not make you a closet sociopath yourself?

In your minds, its okay to KILL A CHILD, just because that child is making life difficult ... perhaps even extraordinarily so. In my mind, that is NOT excusable, or okay.

Our differences in value systems are so clearly separated that, quite frankly, I see no point in discussing it further (hell, one person has already attempted to mischaracterize "sociopath" in order to fit his agenda).

Personally, while I may disagree with a moderator's opinion, I would take some care not to accuse him of "mischaracterizing" something to "fit his agenda". Our moderators here are very professional but as humans I'm sure they have limits...

Anyway, a plausible path for a sociopath, when faced with two autistic children is indeed to get rid of them at an early stage. However, practical considerations alone may justify keeping them around and in that case, ironically the sociopathy would arguably make it less of a burden to keep them alive, if not quite "raising them".

Stress comes from actually caring about the results being obtained, which would require empathy and conscience. If you don't care innately that your autistic children are not reaching normal developmental goals or anything like that, then the extra effort of raising an autistic child is reduced to the physical technicalities (such as the extra effort of having to feed him manually, extra clean-up ... etc) - in short it is something of a minimum.

Thus, the fact she finally, after a struggle of fair length killed her two children is actually a sign that she's not a sociopath but merely overwhelmed, and the ultimate irony of your argument is that the autistic children might actually have survived for another indeterminate period had your accusation been correct.

You can attempt justify the killing of two CHILDREN any way you'd like - I will not cease to see that as a fine example of intense depravity, brought on by a sickening need to understand the criminal despite the loss of the victim.

I must say I wonder at your attempt to describe "understanding" as "sickening". Is it not better to objectively analyze the entire situation with the information at hand, thus affirming your conclusion, rather than just succumbing to your instincts? Or is it because you fear if you bothered to analyze the entire situation, your current rage would subside?

But let me play ball one last time: you want "two long term plausible lifestyles" that are more stressful. I could give 100. But "stressful" is a matter of opinion.

From the examples you presented, I can conclude that part of our disagreement is due to your underassessment of the stress involved. Which puts you in a poor position to complain, because to put it bluntly, you have no real basis for saying had you been put in the exact same spot, you would not have wound up doing the same...

In any case, let me ask you one simple question: do you believe that, in the case of raising multiple autistic children, it is acceptable to KILL them once you find it to become too difficult?

Oh wait, you've already answered that.

I don't even know how you came up with that answer from what you are quoting... your instinctive, evolution-ingrained "battle-drill" reaction to a child being killed is all very well but you shouldn't let it interfere with your reading comprehension.

tater

07-24-10, 09:37 AM

I agree with August's base premise which is that insanity is not a reasonable excuse to avoid incarceration (or other punishment). If you are so crazy you cannot be safe to not murder your own children, you should never be on the streets again. Never.

My younger brother was schizophrenic, for example. He was not violent (ever), but I have to say, if he had ever murdered someone, I'd want him locked up forever. We saw too well that no "treatment" was ever more than a band-aid. Drugs would come and go, dosages would go up and down, it was a constant struggle. Anyone capable of murdering children—whatever the reason—is beyond "treatment" IMO. It's not worth the risk. Could the State have her sterilized, for example? Do programs that mandate pedos staying away from kids work 100% of the time—might she EVER be near kids again?

To suggest treatment where lives are literally at stake means you should demonstrate that any treatment used is 100% effective. 100%, not 99.9999999999%, but perfect. She lost the right to benefit of the doubt when she murdered those poor kids.

I have some experience with autism, my nephew is autistic. My sister has numerous friends with multiple autistic kids, too. None of them has been murdered by a parent so far.

NeonSamurai

07-24-10, 09:57 AM

How about?

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

For all of those things to apply, she has to show them at a constant level . That means she has to be that way all the time, not just over one episode.

Your first one would be out anyhow, "Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed", she called and confessed what she did.

There is no evidence that she was callous or lacking empathy, that she put her kids on the bed suggests otherwise. Plus the fact that they had lived as long as they had. No evidence either of shallow emotions either, or grandiosity.

From what evidence there is suggests to me more of a psychotic break from reality, then the work of a sociopath.

She killed her kids because they didn't meet her standards. You're saying that's not a sign of sociopath?If she really was a sociopath, it is highly unlikely the 5 year old would have lived that long. Also sociopaths are not criminally suicidal, and will go to great lengths to avoid being caught. A real sociopath would have killed the kids individually early on in life, made it look like an accident and then taken full advantage of the sympathy. Calling the cops and confessing is not a sign of a rational mind at work (rational people want to avoid getting into trouble). Your typical sociopath is perfectly rational, just in a very frighting and predatory way.

And BTW how do you know these kids were actually autistic?That is what the news report said, and also what she said when she confessed over the phone.

Before you start with the typical condescending message board semantics retort, how bout you first read what was actually written?

I said she displayed sociopathic behavior - not that she was a sociopath. And if you read the article and the behaviors displayed by a sociopath you'd be able to make the connection yourself.

I did read what you wrote, and I disagree that she is displaying sociopathic behavior. To put it in layman terms I think she got overloaded with her life and her brain went crunch which caused her to lash out at the main source of her troubles, her disabled kids, then while still in this state of mind, she called the cops and confessed.

The problem I have is that lay people love to throw around psychological terms like depression and sociopathy with out having a clue what they mean. Woman kills her kids, oh she must be a sociopath/psychopath. There are many other forms of mental breakdown or illness that can prompt such events with out the person being one. You may notice that I am avoiding labeling her or putting her into a category. This is because she has not been properly examined or diagnosed and made available to the public. This is why I am getting on the case of people who try to label her.

Secondly, I am not a pshrink. Are you? And if you are one, how can you justify stating, as a fact, that this woman is not a sociopath?My area of professional expertise falls in that area you could say. I never said she was definitely not a sociopath, just that from what evidence that is available to me, that she is not showing the hallmarks of being one. The biggest one being self preservation. Keep in mind your average sociopath thinks they are better than everyone else and put their lives and needs above everything else. No sociopath is likely to confess to committing a crime, even when presented with overwhelming evidence they will continue to try to lie their way out of it. Could she be the exception to the rule, sure its possible, but its not very probable.

Look over the items in the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised)
http://www.arkancide.com/psychopathy.htm

To be considered a psychopath, if memory serves me you need to score of around 25-30 or higher on the test (there is some debate as to where the cutoff should be). Now do you think a person having many of those traits would be likely to care for disabled children for very long? Would they be likely to confess to killing them?

I mean, surely you know that MANY sociopaths lead seemingly normal lives. It is not out of the realm of possibility (in fact, it's not even terribly uncommon) that sociopaths care for children, so long as that childcare can be a means to whatever end the sociopath considers important.Yes that is true, it is also suspected that many of the business world's top executives are socialized psychopaths, falling more on the path of aggressive narcissism rather than social deviance. However given the basic makeup of a psychopaths, I do not see one looking after autistic kids for any great period of time, way to much work and personal sacrifices involved for a typical sociopath.

http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html
This is something that anyone with even a brief primer in psychology knows. So next time you want to criticize someone's use of a psychological term, maybe you should do more than a cursory internet search to figure out what it means.I think I have demonstrated that I have at least some knowledge on the subject. I didn't even bother with a "cursory search of the internet" in the first post other than to find a link that had the main features of psychopathy/sociopathy.

Would you like to borrow my copy of DSM IV?No thanks, I have my own copy of the DSM IV TR a few feet from where I am. Also the current version is a bit out of date and not used for diagnosing sociopaths/psychopaths. The preferred method is the PCL-R developed by Dr. Hare (as mentioned above). But this is also an area of some contention. Some psychologists think sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing, some not, and the DSM categorizes them as APD which experts like Dr. Hare disagree with and want categorized separately (I personally agree with Dr. Hare). We will see how it changes when the DSM V comes out.

August

07-24-10, 10:29 AM

Some psychologists think sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing, some not, and the DSM categorizes them as APD which experts like Dr. Hare disagree with and want categorized separately (I personally agree with Dr. Hare). We will see how it changes when the DSM V comes out.

Well Neo they can argue definitions all the want but this woman needs to be put in jail for the rest of her life. I damn sure don't want some egghead proclaiming in a few years that she has been "cured" and is ready to rejoin society.

antikristuseke

07-24-10, 11:02 AM

Look over the items in the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised)
http://www.arkancide.com/psychopathy.htm

Hmm, only score 21.

NeonSamurai

07-24-10, 11:12 AM

Gee ... hate on Sarah Palin all you want, but her lifestyle comes to mind. Would you give her a pass if she would have killed her children in a sociopathic fit of rage, precisely similar to this incident?

Of course not.

In her present lifestyle probably not. She has ample resources available to care for her children. Now if she was poverty stricken, single mother, unemployed (raising autistic children is often a full time job), etc. that kind of environment would cause an incredible amount of stress and strain. Depending on her psychological makeup Sarah Palin or others may well crack under those circumstances as well.

Secondly, pick a police officer with 3 autistic children. That's my neighbor. Or the guy across the street from me who runs several youth football leagues. Or another friend of mine who is in Iraq and leaves four children behind (while his wife remains to raise them).

I'm going to ignore the other examples and look at the cop. For your police officer neighbor, the question to me is again the level of resources he has available to draw on, and also the degree of autism each child has. Then we could gauge the degree of stress the family structure is under.

It's amazing the weight that liberals apply to certain stressors when it excuses someone of a crime. Scratch that, that's not particularly amazing. What IS incredible is the blind way that any adversity the perpetuator faces is automatically valued as worse than any other.

I don't understand where politics came into this, so I am going to ignore it. For one thing I personally am not seeking to excuse her actions, but in criminal cases, mitigating factors are considered in judgment, particularly if those factors were beyond the control of the individual, or removed control from them.

Insanity would be such a factor, particularly if it was brought on by factors beyond the woman's control, such as if the kids were severely autistic, if she was poor, if she did not have a spouse, or a job, or family support, had other mental problems etc. These factors could create an impossible situation of extreme stress.

I'm pretty sure that, should the story had been the same regarding any high stress situation, those of you defending the woman in question would have found an excuse all the same.

And, that is the problem.

In your minds, its okay to KILL A CHILD, just because that child is making life difficult ... perhaps even extraordinarily so. In my mind, that is NOT excusable, or okay.

Is it really necessary to resort to such levels of hyperbole? You seem to be missing the point entirely. I don't think any of us think the murders were good or justifiable. Just that there may be extenuating circumstances which would justify some degree of mercy towards the mother, particularly as I suspect at this point that the murders were an insane act beyond the control of the mother.

Our differences in value systems are so clearly separated that, quite frankly, I see no point in discussing it further (hell, one person has already attempted to mischaracterize "sociopath" in order to fit his agenda). You can attempt justify the killing of two CHILDREN any way you'd like - I will not cease to see that as a fine example of intense depravity, brought on by a sickening need to understand the criminal despite the loss of the victim.

I assume that shot was aimed at me. Its interesting that you think I have an agenda here, pray tell what agenda is that? From my perspective, my only "agenda" is the pursuit of fairness. If the woman intentionally with full faculty of mind killed her children, then she should burn for it. As for miss-characterizing what a sociopath is, I think I already addressed that, but if you like we could really get into it. I also think it is important to understand the crime and the criminal, so as to properly determine punishment or treatment.

I agree with August's base premise which is that insanity is not a reasonable excuse to avoid incarceration (or other punishment). If you are so crazy you cannot be safe to not murder your own children, you should never be on the streets again. Never.

It depends on the cause and triggers. There is such a thing as temporary insanity brought on by extreme stress and other factors. Where normally this person is a fine, healthy, upstanding citizen till internal and external factors cause them to break with reality. These people usually feel intense guilt over their actions even though they were not themselves and had no control over the situation.

My younger brother was schizophrenic, for example. He was not violent (ever), but I have to say, if he had ever murdered someone, I'd want him locked up forever. We saw too well that no "treatment" was ever more than a band-aid. Drugs would come and go, dosages would go up and down, it was a constant struggle. Anyone capable of murdering children—whatever the reason—is beyond "treatment" IMO. It's not worth the risk. Could the State have her sterilized, for example? Do programs that mandate pedos staying away from kids work 100% of the time—might she EVER be near kids again?

In the case of schizophrenia, yes you are more or less correct. Some drugs work for some people and can help them lead semi normal lives, though most of these drugs come with severe side effects. There is no effective treatment, and no cure. If he is a violent schizophrenic, then he would need to be kept in a mental hospital. I however do not think that prison would be appropriate, as those facilities are incapable of dealing with such cases, and the lives lead by such people are often cruel beyond belief. The common solution is to just strap the prisoner down to a bed or gurney and tranquilize them.

The important thing to understand is such acts committed by the mentally ill are not within their control. I think that it is wrong to try to punish someone like that, though they of course should be confined if they are a danger to society, but preferably in as humane a fashion as is possible.

As for the woman in question, before deciding her fate, it would probably be a good idea to find out exactly what happened and why.

To suggest treatment where lives are literally at stake means you should demonstrate that any treatment used is 100% effective. 100%, not 99.9999999999%, but perfect. She lost the right to benefit of the doubt when she murdered those poor kids.

Those are impossible standards, perfection is impossible.

I have some experience with autism, my nephew is autistic. My sister has numerous friends with multiple autistic kids, too. None of them has been murdered by a parent so far.

It's not a question of if the kids are autistic or not, its a question of the total environment and the levels of stress it is causing.

Also as you may know, there is a huge range when it comes to autism. You can have mildly autistic people which lead more or less normal lives, then you can have the other extreme, where they are totally incapable of functioning on their own, lack motor control, or that are violent or commit self harm (like banging their head hard against a wall), and that is just some of the possible symptoms.

Mental Illness is not black or white, but many shades of grey and variation.

NeonSamurai

07-24-10, 11:32 AM

Well Neo they can argue definitions all the want but this woman needs to be put in jail for the rest of her life. I damn sure don't want some egghead proclaiming in a few years that she has been "cured" and is ready to rejoin society.

I don't know at this point in time. If my line of thought is correct, I don't think she is a danger to society and that it was a temporary form of insanity. In fact suicide may be a distinct possibility in her case. Like I said I think it depends on what caused this tragic event.

Generally speaking there is no "cure" per say, either she is mentally ill which may not be treatable, or she will need extensive therapy and counseling to deal with her actions if she is not mentally ill.

I guess I just don't see it as being black or white. Punishment/rehabilitation should match not just the crime, but also the circumstances.

Hmm, only score 21.

Try harder next time :DL

Technically though the test is administered by a trained professional who examines the person's background and history, along with a few interviews with the subject and as many other people who know the subject. Psychopaths tend to be very clever and will do their best to throw off the tests, which is why you need to look into their history so much.

P.S. This is a pretty good documentary on youtube on psychopaths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA9-RB3runE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mML7VKrRhk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7_z41HMnKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIX19pbQAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYqyRtv7lw

Jimbuna

07-24-10, 11:38 AM

Well Neo they can argue definitions all the want but this woman needs to be put in jail for the rest of her life. I damn sure don't want some egghead proclaiming in a few years that she has been "cured" and is ready to rejoin society.

One question I would ask any parent is....would you feel comfortable leaving your young children in the care of this woman after such a proclamation?

The facts is she killed her two children and iregardless of the factors and potential mitigating circumstances, she clearly poses a potential serious risk not only to herself but also to those children she may come into close contact with in the future.

If after the necessary treatments/therapies are thought to have worked and are verified in the future by professionally qualified people who are prepared to be held fully accountable for the decision making process and any potential serious consequences, only then should further consideration be given as to what the future holds for her.

Been there, got the tee shirt and it still makes me feel physically sick when life is taken unnecessarily and especially that of children.

antikristuseke

07-24-10, 12:25 PM

Try harder next time :DL

Technically though the test is administered by a trained professional who examines the person's background and history, along with a few interviews with the subject and as many other people who know the subject. Psychopaths tend to be very clever and will do their best to throw off the tests, which is why you need to look into their history so much.

P.S. This is a pretty good documentary on youtube on psychopaths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA9-RB3runE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mML7VKrRhk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7_z41HMnKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIX19pbQAs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYqyRtv7lw

I just tried to be as honest as possible on that test, but understand what you mean, thanks fr the links btw.

tater

07-24-10, 12:33 PM

100% is a reasonable standard when the crime is murder. We have 100% proof that she's capable of murdering children. We have less than 100% proof that she'll never do it again.

If the perp is NOT insane, then I'd say for murdering 2 kids, they should get either death, or life in prison—no getting out except in a box, period, not ever—I'm fine with life in prison with no parole instead of the death penalty, but I do think they should have no "perks" in prison (no TV, radio, etc). There is some chance >0 that they will kill again. Having murdered, they lose any benefit of the doubt from ME, anyway. I'll never trust they are rehabilitated. Never.

In the case of someone insane, I think the same rules apply. They might be treatable, but they could possibly relapse. Since a relapse could mean more dead, tough, they need to be incarcerated for life. What type of facility I'm open to debate about, but she should never walk the streets again.

Jimbuna

07-24-10, 01:33 PM

August

07-24-10, 01:47 PM

If after the necessary treatments/therapies are thought to have worked and are verified in the future by professionally qualified people who are prepared to be held fully accountable for the decision making process and any potential serious consequences, only then should further consideration be given as to what the future holds for her

There lies the rub. What defines "being held fully accountable"? If this woman is released back into the general public and she kills again a reprimand just isn't going to cut it.

Jimbuna

07-24-10, 04:07 PM

There lies the rub. What defines "being held fully accountable"? If this woman is released back into the general public and she kills again a reprimand just isn't going to cut it.

Oh I fully agree...therefore the penalty for failure should be far more severe than a reprimand, perhaps finding oneself 'struck off' and a lengthy prison term would better suffice.

If you want to be a 'do-gooder' that's fine but don't gamble with peoples lives.

Tribesman

07-24-10, 04:45 PM

I agree with August's base premise which is that insanity is not a reasonable excuse to avoid incarceration (or other punishment).
If someone is found insane it doesn't mean they avoid being locked up so isn't that base premise false?

tater

07-24-10, 05:01 PM

If someone is found insane it doesn't mean they avoid being locked up so isn't that base premise false?

Not at all. People literally walk out of psych facilities all the time in the US.

If they face life in a psychiatric facility with security that makes escape impossible, then I'm fine with that.

I want them incarcerated, not admitted to some psych ward.

From a law site:
What Happens if the Court Finds a Defendant Criminally Insane?

Often, the defendant will be committed to a psychiatric hospital if he was found to be responsible for the alleged crimes but not guilty by reason of insanity. Typically, the commitment is not for a set amount of time but rather until the individual is deemed not to be a threat to society.

THAT is the problem. When you are committed, it becomes a medical, not a criminal justice issue when you are released. Their threshold of "not a threat" might not be the same as mine—0% chance of being a threat, +-0.000000% uncertainty.

Docs would never say someone is 100%, so they WILL release them at some point.

FWIW, some states have eliminated the insanity defense, and it was upheld by the SC.

Tribesman

07-24-10, 05:28 PM

Not at all. People literally walk out of psych facilities all the time in the US.

Do you mean to say that the US lacks secure units for people who are ordered to be involuntarily detained as criminally insane?

When you are committed, it becomes a medical, not a criminal justice issue when you are released.
Is that because insanity is a medical thing?

FWIW, some states have eliminated the insanity defense, and it was upheld by the SC.
And others have determined that people can be detained on medical grounds long after they would have been released from a criminal justice angle...and it was upheld.
It has also been ruled that people can be retried and resentanced after an aquittal for insanity when it is decided the people are no longer insane.

antikristuseke

07-24-10, 06:05 PM

THAT is the problem. When you are committed, it becomes a medical, not a criminal justice issue when you are released. Their threshold of "not a threat" might not be the same as mine—0% chance of being a threat, +-0.000000% uncertainty.

Docs would never say someone is 100%, so they WILL release them at some point.

FWIW, some states have eliminated the insanity defense, and it was upheld by the SC.

Nothing is absolute so the standard you have set is impossible to aspire to.

tater

07-24-10, 09:14 PM

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-24-10, 09:57 PM

Oh I fully agree...therefore the penalty for failure should be far more severe than a reprimand, perhaps finding oneself 'struck off' and a lengthy prison term would better suffice.

If you want to be a 'do-gooder' that's fine but don't gamble with peoples lives.

If you just want to say you don't want this woman free even if it was a case of insanity, why don't you just be intellectually honest and say so. Do we hold say police officers, prosecutors or judges "fully accountable" if they blow it and convict an innocent man, thus causing him the pains of being incarcerated? There is a theoretical case for justifying this, but as a practical matter given human nature this would basically neuter the current justice system, so we don't.

Ditto for the "must be 100%" people.

If you want to "play it safe", that's fine but don't easily trade off a gamble with a certainty.

One question I would ask any parent is....would you feel comfortable leaving your young children in the care of this woman after such a proclamation?

I'm not a parent, and likely will never be one, so perhaps I'm lacking those instincts in the correct quantities. Intellectually, given the information on hand, while she's likely not the most stable mother ever built (after all, there are plenty of parents who have survived the experience of handling autistic children though perhaps with more support, and she's not one of them), her stability reserve is not necessarily so poor that it falls outside the "normal range".

So I think I'll feel about as comfortable as handing them over to a known aggressive person. Which means in practical terms I won't. However, I would likely not wish said aggressive person to be effectively locked behind bars permanently.

How many people on this planet will you really trust to handle your kids? How many of those who didn't qualify for the first question do you think should be locked up? There is a huge gulf of trust levels between "I'll let X handle my kids" and "X should be locked up for life".

And before you accuse me, yes, I'll admit when I typed that there was a twist in my gut, so I suppose my visceral feelings about this are similar to yours. But I recognize what is visceral and what is intellectual.

Tribesman

07-25-10, 03:41 AM

I want a 0% chance they will kill again. That is not an impossible standard, it's in fact easy. Get convicted of murder, and you will die either in jail, or a "medical" jail.
Actually that 0% chance is only achievable through one course of action. Are you advocating that course?

Jimbuna

07-25-10, 07:16 AM

If you just want to say you don't want this woman free even if it was a case of insanity, why don't you just be intellectually honest and say so.

I wasn't aware I was giving the impression of being dishonest.

If the courts and a jury of her peers decide she is insane then she should be sent to a secure establishment where she can receive the appropriate medical help. If on the other hand she is found to be sane then she should be subject to whatever statutes exist in said State.

Do we hold say police officers, prosecutors or judges "fully accountable" if they blow it and convict an innocent man, thus causing him the pains of being incarcerated?

Now there lies a fundamental problem/dilemna which I suspect abounds in many countries, not just the UK. How many times do we see soft sentences handed down to serious offenders only to see them re-offend soon after release...and I'm talking about crimes such as paedophilia, rape, robbery and murder. Too often in my opinion.

And before you accuse me, yes, I'll admit when I typed that there was a twist in my gut, so I suppose my visceral feelings about this are similar to yours. But I recognize what is visceral and what is intellectual.

As do I sir, as do I....and was trained to be and occasionally involved at the forefront of some very serious similar business for fifteen years.

I'm not advocating death penalties or suggesting any form of punishment here, I am simply stating my opinion that EVERYONE should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, at whatever level or impact they are deemed to be.

The bottom line for me is....two children met their end as a direct physical consequence of the actions of their mother...how it all ends is irrelevent to those two youngsters now but society has a moral and lawful obligation to bring this sad sorry matter to a justifiable conclusion, whatever that may be.

NeonSamurai

07-25-10, 08:05 AM

Insanity is a medical thing, but there is virtually no cure for organic, mental illness. Drug therapy, even when it works, only works when the patient takes the drugs. They typical drill is they feel better, and stop taking it (side effects are nasty). I'm well-versed in this cycle, we lived it with my brother.

My point is simple, if someone is so nuts that they murder people, I want them locked up in a secure facility. I don't care if it's a secure psych ward, it just needs to be secure. The conditions of their release should NOT be medical, but criminal. Ie: they get "life" and if the first XX years are under medical care, so be it. If they are judged "well," then off to jail they go til they die.

I want a 0% chance they will kill again. That is not an impossible standard, it's in fact easy. Get convicted of murder, and you will die either in jail, or a "medical" jail.

The problem though as I see it is that you are generalizing the one form of mental illness you are intimately familiar with, to all the other forms.

What you said is certainly true about schizophrenia, that generally speaking the treatments are not overly effective, and that the side effects of the drugs used to treat the condition are considerable which often causes the patient to stop taking the medication. But this is not the case for all forms of mental illness that have a biological basis. Many forms are perfectly treatable where more effective drugs exist that do not have as many or as severe side effects.

Also if you have not noticed yet, the system does not work like that and there are plenty of people walking around who are convicted murderers and many of which who are very likely to reoffend. For example in that documentary i linked, the psychopath they featured in it will be released soon. He has killed before (he even admits murdering his brother on camera), and I guarantee he will re-offend. This kind of individual is a severe threat to the greater public, and there is no form of effective therapy or treatment for psychopathy.

I wasn't aware I was giving the impression of being dishonest.

If the courts and a jury of her peers decide she is insane then she should be sent to a secure establishment where she can receive the appropriate medical help. If on the other hand she is found to be sane then she should be subject to whatever statutes exist in said State.

I agree with you.

Now there lies a fundamental problem/dilemna which I suspect abounds in many countries, not just the UK. How many times do we see soft sentences handed down to serious offenders only to see them re-offend soon after release...and I'm talking about crimes such as paedophilia, rape, robbery and murder. Too often in my opinion.This is a problem as a lot of this stuff cannot be treated for effectivly, particularly when dealing with rapists and pedophiles, who are often psychopathic. These people are wired differently and function on a completely different plane of existence. Currently there is no way to treat or rehabilitate these people (nor do I predict that changing any time soon), and yet it is not entirely their fault either, they are born that way.

Also the reason for the softer sentences is primarily due to the ongoing crisis in the penal system particularly in the US. The US has the largest prison population per capita in the world (and by a large margin). Prisons are so over crowded that some are now practicing warehousing where they hold large numbers of inmates in very large rooms using bunking (sort of like barracks but on a much bigger scale). Large numbers of these prisoners are in jail for relatively minor offenses (drug use, or drug possession in small quantities).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

As do I sir, as do I....and was trained to be and occasionally involved at the forefront of some very serious similar business for fifteen years.

I'm not advocating death penalties or suggesting any form of punishment here, I am simply stating my opinion that EVERYONE should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, at whatever level or impact they are deemed to be.

The bottom line for me is....two children met their end as a direct physical consequence of the actions of their mother...how it all ends is irrelevent to those two youngsters now but society has a moral and lawful obligation to bring this sad sorry matter to a justifiable conclusion, whatever that may be.I don't think any of us are advocating a get out of jail free card. For me the argument is what is the most moral and fair way to deal with the case. If it was a case of insanity which cause the events and where she did not have control over herself or her faculties, then is she really accountable for her actions?

For me so far I think it was a case of insanity, probably temporary that caused it, though the ramifications for her if that is the case will be long term psychologically. If she did love her children (which I think was the case given she put the children in bed afterwords, which suggests care on her part in spite of her earlier brutal actions), the trauma of having killed them will be severe. There are several signs in the news reports that suggest a form of temporary insanity was the case. The way she killed the children, what she did with their bodies afterwords, that she called and confessed what she did, and did so using a flat voice, the ages of the children, and a lot of other little things.

Other then that, I wanted to stop the psychological labeling being assigned to her here.

thorn69

07-25-10, 09:48 AM

The father probably dumped all three of them. :nope:

These kids probably never had a real chance. Most sad. :nope:

Ah, the "blame the father/men are the bad guys" mentality! It's amazing what 40+ years of man-hating/male-bashing feminism and social engineering can achieve! :nope:

SHE admitted to killing HER own kids and you're looking to criminalize and blame the father?! :-? Dude, quit being such a sexist jerk! Women commit crimes too you know! Fact is, women kill their own kids more often than men do by far.

Or are you saying that men shouldn't have the right to leave their wives and children to start a new life for themselves when they feel their marriage is broken? Is this a right that you feel that should only be allowed for women or something? Is an unhappy and broken marriage in the best interest of the children? Nope.

Besides, how do you know that she didn't divorce her husband (women seek and initiate divorce at a ratio of 8 to 2 in the US) and the VERY pro-woman/sexist-against-men custody court didn't award her sole or primary custody of the kids simply because she was missing the extra skin between her legs? You do realize that women get custody of their children 9 times out of 10 in the US right? - Which is amazing to me considering the very low amount of crime that fathers commit against their own children in the US and the better-off overall children they tend to raise. Did you know that single fathers generally produce better-off (drug-free, better grades, high school graduates, more disciplined, better work ethic, and land better paying jobs) children than single mothers do? Yet, the courts still seem to think that children are better-off with their mothers for some sexist BS reason?!:nope:

Fact is, this country is so sexist against men that the US government runs adds on the TV telling men to "Be a father today" towards their kids - As if there are not just as many women that could be told to "Be a mother today" just the same! Where are those ads at huh?

It's obvious that man-hating/male-bashing feminism and social engineering has certainly established a very solid "a man must be to blame" attitude in this country it's sickening!

Why don't you hold the talking dog to her word in this case? She's the criminal! She admitted that and must pay for her crime. I hope she gets her f-ing head chopped off personally! I can't stand anybody that would hurt or kill a child. I don't care if she was insane or not when she did it. The fact is - SHE DID IT! Her death would benefit the rest of society (less tax dollars) and probably benefit her too because living with a guilty conciseness for the rest of your life would amount to cruelty! Just kill the stupid cow and be done with it!

tater

07-25-10, 10:14 AM

Actually that 0% chance is only achievable through one course of action. Are you advocating that course?

The death penalty?

At this time in the US, I'm pro death penalty for one reason, "life" doesn't always mean "life." If the murderer can ever get out for any reason (other than an overturned conviction, obviously), then I'd rather they be executed.

I think real life terms are superior to the DP as long as the jail doesn't allow them luxuries like TV, music, etc. (I'd make the sentence more austere only after all appeals have failed just in case). But again, no chance of parole, period. The rest of your life in a cage. I might go so far as to say no aggressive medical care. For example, any cancer would result in palliative care only (a life sentence should never prolong that life). I think life is better than the DP because of the possibility of a mistake being made.

In this case 0% is certainly possible. Life sentence, no parole (assuming that state has a real life sentence). If the mental-health option allows them to be discharged with a chance of a repeat offense >0, then I'd say that's the wrong way to deal with it.

If she had harmed her kids, I'd be fine with that, but she murdered them—even if it "wasn't her fault" due to illness, she should not ever be free.

BTW, neon's comments about the prison system, and high incarceration rates due to drugs are right. I'd also legalize or decriminalize most all drugs—I don't care in the least what someone does to their own body (though they should have to take responsibility if they OD, and pony up cash for treatment, or do the right thing and expire on the sidewalk).

August

07-25-10, 10:34 AM

Or are you saying that men shouldn't have the right to leave their wives and children to start a new life for themselves when they feel their marriage is broken?

Wives sure, children never. Absent fathers are a major cause of the juvenile related problems in this country and the idea that a man can just abandon his own children because they get in the way of his enjoyment of life contributes to it. I can think of few things that would make me respect a man any less.

Oh and you might learn a little respect for your fellow forum members too. Platapus doesn't deserve it.

thorn69

07-25-10, 11:13 AM

even if it "wasn't her fault" due to illness, she should not ever be free.

Wasn't her fault? Dude, how could it not be her fault? She killed her kids and admitted to it. It WAS her fault. Women in these sorts of cases use the "mental" get-out-of-jail free card WAY too much. Probably because they know they're not likely to get executed if they plead insanity. It's become the "cake" option that Eddie Izzard joked about in "Dressed to Kill" while making fun of the old Church of England and how it enforced law and order. When heretics were convicted the church offered them a choice between "cake or death"... Of course the heretic always chose "cake"!

Of course she was insane - she killed her own kids, but to allow that woman to live a life of any sort - even in a cage is just too much. She needs to be removed from the planet and the sooner the better. Bundy was a mental case also and we fried him so the same should be done here. No exceptions!

There was a point in this woman's life where she knew that she wasn't thinking clearly and yet she refused to get herself help at that point. She endangered her kids and herself by allowing herself to continue going down this negative path she was heading on until she finally hit the dead end. Now she needs to pay the piper and I hope that she gets put on the express train to Hell where she belongs!

I have very little tolerance for bleeding hearts that want to think of what's in this murdering woman's best interest or show her any sympathy. She didn't act in her kids best interests at all so why should society show her any sort of mercy? To do so would be EXTREMELY foolish as this woman will never be a productive citizen of our society again and is too much of a risk to ever allow to be free.

It currently costs over $30,000 to house, feed, and medicate a single healthy inmate in the US. That's more money than many families bring in per year! Mentally disturbed and handicapped inmates cost taxpayers over $75,000 per year to house, feed, and medicate. That's more money than most people in the US make in a year! This woman isn't worthy of any of those tax dollars!

The reason why our prisons are so full right now is because of bleeding heart liberals who seem to think that criminal scumbags should be given 20th chances. Somebody needs to draw the line and start offing these worthless POS from existence. If it was done enough, then maybe others would think differently about committing criminal acts.

Plus, they need to stop using that friggin gay needle to execute people with. That's such a pansy way to go and costs way too much. They need to get medieval again so that people will be scared of the death penalty once more. I say bring back the horse drawn and quartered method! It was extremely painful for the scumbag that deserved it and it was damn cheap. Horses are too damn quick though... Are there any really big and slow turtles that could be used instead? :rotfl2:

thorn69

07-25-10, 11:31 AM

Wives sure, children never. Absent fathers are a major cause of the juvenile related problems in this country Maybe women should think about this before initiated divorce at a ratio of 8 to 2! Not to mention that 90% of divorce is in regards to "financial" reasons. Basically the two numbers tells me that if the guy isn't making enough money to please her - she's done with him despite what's in the best interests of their children.

and the idea that a man can just abandon his own children because they get in the way of his enjoyment of life contributes to it. I can think of few things that would make me respect a man any less.Are men not allowed to be free citizens too? You seem to want to blame men for all the problems in the relationship. What if he was being abused by his wife? Dude, a forced and unhealthy relationship would be a lot worse for everybody in that household - kids included.

Women just abort children when they feel they are going to be in the way of their own lives. Men don't have that sort of selfish luxury so men are forced into a lifestyle of whatever women choose to do with their bodies. So don't blame a man for leaving a relationship that he wasn't happy with just because some woman wanted to have kids with him to entrap him into a relationship with her. If the relationship isn't going to work for him then it's not going to work for anyone period. That's worse for the kids and the woman then having him around by far. I've also seen quite a few women abandon their kids to their ex and run off to shack up with another man. It goes both ways.

Men who kill children usually do it because of sexual mental disorders that were developed by childhood abuse they suffered themselves. Women usually kill children because of greed and selfishness because the kids were in the way of the new lifestyle they were perusing.

Recently there was a woman who divorced her husband and married another guy she had been cheating on her first husband with. She had won custody of her son, despite her ex husbands pleas to the court that she wasn't stable. Then, she and her new lover killed the boy and got married in the same day. I think the new lover beat her son to death in front of her and she did nothing to stop him. She encouraged him to kill her son. Then they buried the boy in a bag along the side of a cliff. Then she felt guilty and turned herself and her new husband over to the authorities.

There was also that woman in Florida that killed her own daughter because she wanted to go clubbing and hook up with guys. She was afraid that no guy would want her if they knew she had a kid already. Haven't heard much about her case in awhile though. I hope some female inmate killed her in prison.

Oh and you might learn a little respect for your fellow forum members too. Platapus doesn't deserve it.BTW.. Maybe Platapus should be a little more respectful and not so sexist with his "blame the guy" attitude. Like I said before, it goes both ways.

August

07-25-10, 01:33 PM

BTW.. Maybe Platapus should be a little more respectful and not so sexist with his "blame the guy" attitude. Like I said before, it goes both ways.

He wasn't being nearly as sexist as you're being. For every example you post I could dig up another that shows the father to be the bad parent.

Bottom line here is that your children are still your children no matter what and if you abandon them just because you chose your women poorly then you aren't much of a father, or a man, in my book.

Tribesman

07-25-10, 03:54 PM

The death penalty?

Indeed, execute the insane...sounds nice doesn't it:hmmm:

At this time in the US, I'm pro death penalty for one reason, "life" doesn't always mean "life." If the murderer can ever get out for any reason (other than an overturned conviction, obviously), then I'd rather they be executed.

Hmmmmm...what use is an overturned conviction after execution?

In this case 0% is certainly possible.
Nope, think about it:hmmm:

hope she gets her f-ing head chopped off personally!
OK thorn , you earlier claimed you was in law enforcementwhich means you are on the loose with a gun....have you reported yourself for detention yet or has any of your family?
It C
certainly sounds like a section case.

Maybe women should think about this
County mountie with a failed marriage by any chance?

tater

07-25-10, 05:10 PM

Indeed, execute the insane...sounds nice doesn't it:hmmm:

If someone is such a psycho they cannot help but murder---say a pedo who murders---then I have zero problem executing the insane.

Hmmmmm...what use is an overturned conviction after execution?

Sigh.

My point was that I want either death, or LIFE in jail (if the perp is insane, the "jail" can be an equally secure mental facility, but the term still needs to be "life.")

Since we do not have that in the US---people get let out early, or in the case of insanity, they can be released because they are "well"---I favor the DP. My entire point regarding a proper life term, was that it prevents accidental deaths. Note that no one goes to the DP in the US without a full set of appeals---THAT is when it would have been overturned.

Nope, think about it:hmmm:

If they are locked up in some facility for life, they cannot kill again---except other patients/convicts. Given their secure environment this is far less likely. Also, if they kill another murderer... I won't lose sleep.

BTW, if you mix quotes, attribute them, you made it look like I wrote some of that tripe.

Tribesman

07-25-10, 05:47 PM

BTW, if you mix quotes, attribute them, you made it look like I wrote some of that tripe.
Sorry tater, I didn't mean to associate you with that tripe.

If someone is such a psycho they cannot help but murder---say a pedo who murders---then I have zero problem executing the insane.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if someone is insane then they are innocent as they are unnaccountable for their action ain't they.....so would this mean executing the "innocent"?

My point was that I want either death, or LIFE in jail (if the perp is insane, the "jail" can be an equally secure mental facility, but the term still needs to be "life.")

So you would indeed be satisfied with the thing people objected to.

Since we do not have that in the US---people get let out early, or in the case of insanity, they can be released because they are "well"---I favor the DP.
So because yo have doubts about the legal and medical system being able to do their job to a satisfactory level you favour them just killing so its over and done with?
wind that back a bit...because they can't ensure they do their job properly they should just kil so they don't have the chance to do their job either correctly or incorrectly.

If they are locked up in some facility for life, they cannot kill again---except other patients/convicts.
Apart from the fact that patients and convists are not the only people exposed doesn't that put a rather negative turn on your arguement?
Are you saying people with mental health issues can be murdered by a nutcase and it would be Ok as they are only a patient or are you saying that someone in prison for non payment of a traffic ticket can simply be killed as they are a convict.

It was mentioned earlier the problems of dealing in absolutes wasn't it.
That was illustrated before with a statement by Aramike that frankly can only be described as ludicrous.

thorn69

07-25-10, 06:18 PM

He wasn't being nearly as sexist as you're being. For every example you post I could dig up another that shows the father to be the bad parent.

Bottom line here is that your children are still your children no matter what and if you abandon them just because you chose your women poorly then you aren't much of a father, or a man, in my book.

How the hell am I being sexist here? Just because I think that blaming the father in this case (where the woman self admitted to killing her own kids) is wrong!? WTF man!? :nope:

Like I said, 40+ years of man-hating feminism and social engineering has apparently brainwashed people into finding fault with a man - even in cases like this where a woman self admits to committing the crime.

Sure, males generally commit more crimes than women but the statistics of women in the US committing major crimes (especially against children and men) is alarming and has been drastically growing over the past 40+ years coincidentally enough. Statistics of major crime committed by males on the other hand has been steadily dropping over the past 40+ years. Probably has something to do with all the promoting of girls to be more like boys and boys to be more like girls that's been going on during the last 3 decades - that and an increase in drug and alcohol abuse by women.

August

07-25-10, 06:48 PM

How the hell am I being sexist here? Just because I think that blaming the father in this case (where the woman self admitted to killing her own kids) is wrong!? WTF man!? :nope:

And where was the father? Why was dumping them at his door not an option for this woman? Why do you think that he's not in the wrong here?

Like I said, 40+ years of man-hating feminism and social engineering has apparently brainwashed people into finding fault with a man - even in cases like this where a woman self admits to committing the crime.

Uh, huh, well murderer though she may be, you can't blame feminism for your shirkers attitude that it's ok to just walk out on your own kids because you have a right to be a "free citizen".

conus00

07-25-10, 07:24 PM

...I'm fine with life in prison with no parole instead of the death penalty...
Can I ask you why?
She clearly took two (young) lives and confessed to it. Why would you settle for life in prison? I'm not sure what that would achieve?
She will never be 100% reliable not do do it again. Just get rid of her (and other people like her).
I am, in general, aware of the setbacks of capital punishment but she DID do it and I don't see any reason why she should be kept in heated/air-conditioned environment, fed three meals a day, have her laundry done etc. for the rest of her life out of your and my pocket...

She's SICK? Are you f---ing kidding me? It's not like she has flu and it's gonna go away after few pills...

IMO the society grew way too soft to deal with this kind of crime....

NeonSamurai

07-26-10, 08:42 AM

Can I ask you why?
She clearly took two (young) lives and confessed to it. Why would you settle for life in prison? I'm not sure what that would achieve?
She will never be 100% reliable not do do it again. Just get rid of her (and other people like her).
I am, in general, aware of the setbacks of capital punishment but she DID do it and I don't see any reason why she should be kept in heated/air-conditioned environment, fed three meals a day, have her laundry done etc. for the rest of her life out of your and my pocket...

She's SICK? Are you f---ing kidding me? It's not like she has flu and it's gonna go away after few pills...

IMO the society grew way too soft to deal with this kind of crime....

That or maybe society has come to the conclusion that executing the mentally ill who are incapable of being responsible for the crime(s) they committed is morally wrong. That the crimes were effectively committed more by accident then by malicious design.

As for the woman being a danger in the future, its hard to say and depends on why it happened and what mental illness(es) she may have. I suspect she does not represent a danger to others if my theory is correct. If the root cause of her actions was environmentally triggered, then the chances of a repeat are improbable unless put in similar circumstances.

August

07-26-10, 09:23 AM

That or maybe society has come to the conclusion that executing the mentally ill who are incapable of being responsible for the crime(s) they committed is morally wrong.

I agree with you regarding the death penalty but make no mistake Neo, she IS responsible for the crime she committed.

That the crimes were effectively committed more by accident then by malicious design.

You can't be talking about the child murderer mentioned in the op because there was nothing accidental about their deaths.

...then the chances of a repeat are improbable unless put in similar circumstances.

Improbable? I want "impossible" at least or she should stay in custody. You let somebody loose who has even the smallest chance of killing again and any blood they shed is also on your hands.

Jimbuna

07-26-10, 09:30 AM

I agree with you regarding the death penalty but make no mistake Neo, she IS responsible for the crime she committed.

You can't be talking about the child murderer mentioned in the op because there was nothing accidental about their deaths.

Improbable? I want "impossible" at least or she should stay in custody. You let somebody loose who has even the smallest chance of killing again and any blood they shed is also on your hands.

Agreed http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/wolfcop.gif

thorn69

07-26-10, 12:30 PM

And where was the father? Why was dumping them at his door not an option for this woman? Why do you think that he's not in the wrong here?

Because father's don't have a right to abort out of child raising like women do. If a man doesn't want children he has to rely on a thin piece of latex and a woman's word that she's on BC. Women have an after pregnancy option to abort unwanted children. This woman wanted her children at one point and then snuffed them out when they didn't come out completely perfect to her expectations.

BTW, I'm against abortion 110% because I feel that it rewards irresponsible people and I think it's murder in the eyes of God. The government and their laws are not higher than his. But so long as abortion is considered ethical and legal in the government's eyes, I feel that males deserve some sort of after pregnancy rights as well.

Right now, the current law requires men to be the sole responsible ones to ensure unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen and this is just wrong. Women should be equally responsible in preventing unwanted pregnancy BEFORE spreading their legs open for some guy they don't want to have a baby with.

The current law also allows women to entrap men into an 18+ years of difficult financial relationship that is usually very bitter and usually not what's going to be in the best interest of the child since the father and the mother are going to be fighting over the phone all the time.

I believe males should have "opt out" rights equivalent to women's abortion rights. "Opt out" rights for males should exempt them from child raising/support so long as it's filed PRIOR to the birth of the child. Males should be given just as much time in deciding if "opting out" is what they want to do - on par with the maximum length of time women are given to make a determination if abortion is what they want to do. This would still give women their "choice" of either having the baby or aborting it but would also give men an equal "choice" to protect their own selfish self interests all the same.

you can't blame feminism for your shirkers attitude that it's ok to just walk out on your own kids because you have a right to be a "free citizen".Then you can't blame the man for not being there to protect the kids that he didn't want - or what's more likely - the kids she didn't want him to have custody of.

Takeda Shingen

07-26-10, 12:38 PM

Then you can't blame the man for not being there to protect the kids that he didn't want - or what's more likely - the kids she didn't want him to have custody of.

The last time I checked, it takes two to procreate. Yes, the man is responsible as well.

August

07-26-10, 12:46 PM

If a man doesn't want children he has to rely on a thin piece of latex and a woman's word that she's on BC.

No he doesn't. He could of course actually refrain from having sex with a woman that he has no intention of marrying.

Of course that wouldn't jive with your sexist idea that it's always the womans fault for "spreading her legs" right?

thorn69

07-26-10, 01:17 PM

The last time I checked, it takes two to procreate. Yes, the man is responsible as well.

What are you talking about? You didn't even read my post obviously!

Of course it takes two to procreate! But it's wrong to accuse the man in this case of being a deadbeat dad that didn't want anything to do with his kids when there's no details of that printed in the article.

August and Platapus are trying to make the claim that the man in this case should be held partially or fully responsible for the murder of the kids because they were apparently in the care of their mother.

How was he supposed to know she was going to kill them? If he knew this, he probably would have done something to stop her from doing it.

But August and Platapus seem to think he's a jerk because he wasn't involved in his kids life. But as well all know, a man can only be as involved in their kids life as much as the mother allows them to be!

If she had sole or primary custody of the kids then she could have kept the kids from him. Maybe he wanted to be a part of their lives and she just didn't let him be? The article doesn't establish this information.

But there's nothing wrong with a man divorcing his wife and looking for his soul mate. Yes, it sucks for the kids, but that's just life. Women divorce husbands all the time and take the kids away and hook up with other men. Why is this not equally a problem to August and Platapus?

thorn69

07-26-10, 01:50 PM

No he doesn't. He could of course actually refrain from having sex with a woman that he has no intention of marrying.

Of course that wouldn't jive with your sexist idea that it's always the womans fault for "spreading her legs" right?

I never said that it was always a woman's fault. Quit making stuff up that I didn't say. I do believe that women should be MORE responsible about unwanted pregnancy than men though because it's not men that get pregnant.

I believe that BOTH partners need to be EQUALLY responsible and this is why I'm against abortion altogether. It would force BOTH men and women to be equally responsible in preventing unwanted pregnancy BEFORE it happens. Right now, it's only males that really have to worry about unwanted pregnancy since women have an unwanted pregnancy option they can utilize in order to "fix" that problem to benefit their own selfish - self interests. After all, that's ALL abortion is! It benefits selfishness and ONLY a woman's self interest. Men are not given any protection for their own self interests and have their futures decided for them by the women they didn't want to impregnate. This is wrong.

What if a woman engages in sex with a man and she doesn't want to get pregnant but he wants her to so he puts a hole in the condom? Then she ends up pregnant and the man can't do anything to stop her from aborting the child. You see, SHE wanted sex with him but she was too irresponsible to pay the price for her actions.

Same situation but this time a man wants to have sex with a woman and she wants to have a kid with him and he doesn't. She puts a hole in the condom (or does the old post ejaculation "dip and insert" trick) and lies to him and says she's on BC when she really isn't. He trusts her because they've been together for a few years and then gets her pregnant. Now he has to face a future of financial hardship for a child he didn't want to have.

You see the double-standard here that abortion rights have established!

But I feel as though women that abort have a special place in Hell waiting for them. Some 50 million babies are aborted each year. That's downright disgusting and shows just how irresponsible people in this world are.

August

07-26-10, 01:58 PM

August and Platapus are trying...
But August and Platapus seem to think he's a jerk...
Why is this not equally a problem to August and Platapus?

Quit trying to put words in my mouth. All I did was ask you why he you think he should be let off the hook for all this and you responded with some irrelevant crap about abortion and and hell and how a man shouldn't have responsibility for his own children because the evil woman has total control over a man just by "spreading her legs".

I said it before and i'll say it again. No way are you a cop. Not with those juvenile attitudes.

Takeda Shingen

07-26-10, 03:01 PM

What are you talking about? You didn't even read my post obviously!

Of course it takes two to procreate! But it's wrong to accuse the man in this case of being a deadbeat dad that didn't want anything to do with his kids when there's no details of that printed in the article.

August and Platapus are trying to make the claim that the man in this case should be held partially or fully responsible for the murder of the kids because they were apparently in the care of their mother.

How was he supposed to know she was going to kill them? If he knew this, he probably would have done something to stop her from doing it.

But August and Platapus seem to think he's a jerk because he wasn't involved in his kids life. But as well all know, a man can only be as involved in their kids life as much as the mother allows them to be!

If she had sole or primary custody of the kids then she could have kept the kids from him. Maybe he wanted to be a part of their lives and she just didn't let him be? The article doesn't establish this information.

But there's nothing wrong with a man divorcing his wife and looking for his soul mate. Yes, it sucks for the kids, but that's just life. Women divorce husbands all the time and take the kids away and hook up with other men. Why is this not equally a problem to August and Platapus?

Yeah, that's just it; it is not about men divorcing women and being responsible. It is about this weird little vision of America that you have. I'm just glad that I don't live there.