Woman calls 911, says she strangled autistic children

[tater]

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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.

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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/Incarce..._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.

Originally Posted by Platapus

The father probably dumped all three of them.

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

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!

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?!

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by thorn69

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.

Originally Posted by tater

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?

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by thorn69

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.

The death penalty?

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by August

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!?

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.