Woman calls 911, says she strangled autistic children

[Aramike]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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...

[August]

Originally Posted by conus00

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

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]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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]

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

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]

Nicely done, August.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by August

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

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.