Woman calls 911, says she strangled autistic children

[NeonSamurai]

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."

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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

Hmm, only score 21.

[NeonSamurai]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Hmm, only score 21.

Try harder next time

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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Try harder next time

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.

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

[tater]

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

That's pretty much how I see it...and posted two posts prior

[August]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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.