NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4135052

A woman accused of killing her 10-month-old daughter by cutting off her arms has been ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial for murder.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/02/15/ap1829466.html

A 15-year-old boy who claimed the antidepressant Zoloft drove him to kill his grandparents and burn their house down was found guilty of murder Tuesday and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

In the case of the mother cutting off her baby's arms, I have a problem understanding how a woman could become so mentally ill to have done such a brutal thing. I can't bear to think of what that child went through...how could she have listened to the baby's screams and continued? She seemed to have had the presence of mind to call 911 afterwards.

As for the boy who shot and killed his custodial grandparents...first of all, he was 12 when he did it. No offence intended to some of our younger NSers, but a number of 12 year olds just don't understand or appreciate the consequences of their actions. Add to that, the child was on Zoloft which the FDA has found causes suicidal tendencies and psychosis in teens. According to testimony from family, friends, and nurses, he started showing signs of aggression right after starting to take Paxil. When his Rx was switched to Zoloft, the aggression did not improve.

How can one court look at a mother who butchered her child while another court looks at a disturbed child, and come up with such disparate rulings? To me, it is becoming more and more obvious that our courts need universal guidelines.

She's been ruled mentally unfit to stand trial, not mentally insane during the time of the action...

serously i would move outa this country if i could =/

Ask the jurors. Every American is different, so there is no gurantee that all juries will issue consistent verdicts. It won't happen in other countries, either.

serously i would move outa this country if i could =/

That's a defeatist attitude and it accomplishes nothing. If you see something wrong, do what you can to fix it. If you run away from everything that isn't the way you want it, you'll have to dig a hole in the middle of nowhere, hide in it, then pull it in after yourself. This is my country, I love it, and if I see something that isn't working correctly, I start looking for a way to improve it.

The US legal system is complex because in the first place you have more than one legal system covering ordinary crimes by ordinary civilians. The first problem this creates is that States can easily have very different laws, so a capital offence in one state wont be a capital offence elsewhere. This basically means that the value of your life in the USA is defined by your geographical status, get murdered or murder in one state and your life has a different value to that it would have in another state. In some states your life is worth the life of your murderer, and as a murderer your life can be forfeited, yet in another state, as a murder victim, you life is only worth imprisonment, and as a murderer, your life cannot be taken from you. I shudder to think what goes on in people's heads when they describe a system that values life geographically, as being 'the greatest justice system on earth'...
Aside from this different states have entirely different penalities for a range of offences, and different criterias for legal defences. Basically each state can do their own thing to a large degree, and this may be utterly inconsistent with the actions of the state next to them.

Other problems include double jeopardy. By having seperate law systems it is quite possible to render the concept of double jeopardy irrelevent, as you are charged on the same count by multiple systems. In most legal systems that have a double jeopardy premise, each criminal act can only result in one criminal charge (note that one act can constitute multiple criminal acts, however, so systems where double jeopardy is observed in practise can have more than one charge per act, but no more than one charge per criminal act), however in the USA legal system, one can find themselves charged seperately by the state and the federal government. Worse still if the offence can be shown to have occured in more than one state, then it is quite possible to charge the person multiple times, and have multiple trials, all stemming from the same offence. One could be required to defend themselves on the same count numerous times. They could be found not guilty in a federal case, then not guilty in a state prosecuted case, and then be tried all over again in a seperate state. It makes a complete mockery out of the concept of double jeopardy, and can ruin someone financially as they battle multiple authorities to prove they are not guilty of a particular crime.

Further the concept of innocent untill proven guilty has been significantly erroeded in the US justice system. In fact in many cases I would say not such concept operates in the US justice system. If it did how could someone have their property seized, with the onus of proving their innocence being on them, (as opposed to the onus of proving guilt being on the seizing authority)?

The US legal system is complex because in the first place you have more than one legal system covering ordinary crimes by ordinary civilians. The first problem this creates is that States can easily have very different laws, so a capital offence in one state wont be a capital offence elsewhere. This basically means that the value of your life in the USA is defined by your geographical status, get murdered or murder in one state and your life has a different value to that it would have in another state. In some states your life is worth the life of your murderer, and as a murderer your life can be forfeited, yet in another state, as a murder victim, you life is only worth imprisonment, and as a murderer, your life cannot be taken from you. I shudder to think what goes on in people's heads when they describe a system that values life geographically, as being 'the greatest justice system on earth'...
Aside from this different states have entirely different penalities for a range of offences, and different criterias for legal defences. Basically each state can do their own thing to a large degree, and this may be utterly inconsistent with the actions of the state next to them.

Other problems include double jeopardy. By having seperate law systems it is quite possible to render the concept of double jeopardy irrelevent, as you are charged on the same count by multiple systems. In most legal systems that have a double jeopardy premise, each criminal act can only result in one criminal charge (note that one act can constitute multiple criminal acts, however, so systems where double jeopardy is observed in practise can have more than one charge per act, but no more than one charge per criminal act), however in the USA legal system, one can find themselves charged seperately by the state and the federal government. Worse still if the offence can be shown to have occured in more than one state, then it is quite possible to charge the person multiple times, and have multiple trials, all stemming from the same offence. One could be required to defend themselves on the same count numerous times. They could be found not guilty in a federal case, then not guilty in a state prosecuted case, and then be tried all over again in a seperate state. It makes a complete mockery out of the concept of double jeopardy, and can ruin someone financially as they battle multiple authorities to prove they are not guilty of a particular crime.

Further the concept of innocent untill proven guilty has been significantly erroeded in the US justice system. In fact in many cases I would say not such concept operates in the US justice system. If it did how could someone have their property seized, with the onus of proving their innocence being on them, (as opposed to the onus of proving guilt being on the seizing authority)?

You've brought up some really interesting points. As you have pointed out, our court systems are not operating fairly or as intended. Wouldn't it be beneficial to all the states if there was a federal guideline governing the various courts and the sentences they hand down, that would allow equal justice?

As for the boy who shot and killed his custodial grandparents...first of all, he was 12 when he did it.

In the US, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you didn't blame the kid you might have to start wondering how sensible it is for a disturbed 12 year old to have access to firearms, and that would never do.

You've brought up some really interesting points. As you have pointed out, our court systems are not operating fairly or as intended. Wouldn't it be beneficial to all the states if there was a federal guideline governing the various courts and the sentences they hand down, that would allow equal justice?

no it wouldn't. the point of the states is that they have different laws. if you want the life of the murdered to be worth the life of the murderer, go live in NY or some other capital state. You have the good ol' american choice. Federal guidelines like "all states are capital" or "no states are capital" would remove the choice from you.

no it wouldn't. the point of the states is that they have different laws. if you want the life of the murdered to be worth the life of the murderer, go live in NY or some other capital state. You have the good ol' american choice. Federal guidelines like "all states are capital" or "no states are capital" would remove the choice from you.

This is a strong argument. But there are crimes, such as kidnaping, in which one incident can come under the jurisdiction of multiple states. Surely in these cases the crime should be triable only at a federal level. To avoid repeat trials and contradictory verdicts, or sentences.

If one state gave a death penalty for a crime, whilst another gave 20years in prison for the same. Does the convicted individual have to serve the twenty years before being executed or not?

How can one court look at a mother who butchered her child while another court looks at a disturbed child, and come up with such disparate rulings? To me, it is becoming more and more obvious that our courts need universal guidelines.

Well, take a look at who those guidlines would be coming from.

The sad truth is that the right wing wackos in power right now don't give a damn about children once they've been born. They, frankly, don't give a damn about fetuses either, they just use it as a platform for preaching control of women's bodies.

Kill a kid that's already born. Who Cares?!
Kid looks like he'll be trouble to take care of. We have an excuse to kill him or lock him up? Away we go!

The fact that so few people see how truly evil the "tough on crime, family first" lot really are is a disgrace.

Ok, first of all dont let my opinion tick ya'll off too much because its just my opinion, but I think that there should not be any leniency on the metally insane people that commit murder or other serious crimes. I also think that anyone over 13 should be tried as an adult as they have some understaning of what they have done. But again this is just my opinion and its not really very well thought out on my end.

In the US, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you didn't blame the kid you might have to start wondering how sensible it is for a disturbed 12 year old to have access to firearms, and that would never do.

I have been within arm's reach of a loaded pistol or rifle every day, without stop, day and night, since 1983.

I haven't seen any of my firearms leap up and kill someone.

I haven't been driven mad by my firearms, and been compelled to murder people in a senseless rage.

If anything, I've learned to control the will to power, which is a lesson that many fail to learn.

Rather than question the access to firearms, one might question the parents (but of course, they've paid the price for their stupidity). How did they let their child become so f__ked up?

I've taken quite a few different drugs, including Zoloft, and many different recreational drugs - and I've been impaired beyond belief. But at no time was I in a state where I didn't know right from wrong (at least as far as killing goes).

serously i would move outa this country if i could =/

Why cant you? Seriously, its really cheap to live in Mexico! Just dont drink the water! I hear the Chinese are less genocidal than they were in 90's. And lets not forget the peaceful middle east, or if you want to move to Canada thats fine too, need money? Im sure we could work something out, we wont miss you!

In the US, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you didn't blame the kid you might have to start wondering how sensible it is for a disturbed 12 year old to have access to firearms, and that would never do.
Another article said the boy's father gave him the shotgun as a present only a week before hand. I support the right to bear arms but there is no way it should be legal for a 12 year old to own a shotgun and be able to keep it in his possession. Kids are so confused and screwed up at that age that just giving them a gun and letting them do whatever they want with it is insane. If the kid is so into guns just let him get a BB gun like every other freaking teenager.

Another article said the boy's father gave him the shotgun as a present only a week before hand. I support the right to bear arms but there is no way it should be legal for a 12 year old to own a shotgun and be able to keep it in his possession. Kids are so confused and screwed up at that age that just giving them a gun and letting them do whatever they want with it is insane. If the kid is so into guns just let him get a BB gun like every other freaking teenager.
A kid being treated for depression should not be allowed to get within a mile of a loaded weapon...

In the case of the mother cutting off her baby's arms, I have a problem understanding how a woman could become so mentally ill to have done such a brutal thing. I can't bear to think of what that child went through...how could she have listened to the baby's screams and continued? She seemed to have had the presence of mind to call 911 afterwards.


She was later diagnosed with manic depression.

In court, Schlosser sat slumped in her chair and stared straight ahead when the verdict was read, just as she did during most of the trial. Her wrists and ankles were shackled with black belts.

A court-appointed psychiatrist testified that Schlosser suffers from manic-depression and may try to commit suicide. “She’s stated over and over that she wishes she’d been allowed to go with her daughter,” Dr David Self said.

You simply have a problem understanding manic depression then.
Did you in fact read the entirety of that article?

Also, lets not forget that mentally incompetent to stand trial is NOT the same as insanity and she could stand trial in the future. Ofcourse, there would be room for a defence of insanity at the time of the offence...


As for the boy who shot and killed his custodial grandparents...first of all, he was 12 when he did it. No offence intended to some of our younger NSers, but a number of 12 year olds just don't understand or appreciate the consequences of their actions. Add to that, the child was on Zoloft which the FDA has found causes suicidal tendencies and psychosis in teens. According to testimony from family, friends, and nurses, he started showing signs of aggression right after starting to take Paxil. When his Rx was switched to Zoloft, the aggression did not improve.


Right, so it's all right for people taking medication to have violent side effects but not for people who have something seriously wrong with them ie. manic depression....


How can one court look at a mother who butchered her child while another court looks at a disturbed child, and come up with such disparate rulings? To me, it is becoming more and more obvious that our courts need universal guidelines.

Because every case is different and should be viewed as such. You will find that there ARE indeed general rules for everything, but you can't generalise cases. Lets not forget that juries aren't exactly the most impartial of bodies.


You can't really say the things you've said without going into a detailed examination of each case. With what little information you've given, they don't really compare and they encompass different issues.

'Custodial" grandparents? Zoloft?

Sounds like the kid was in a bad situation in general.

As for guns... I've had some form of gun in my ownership since I was five. Currently I think the count is.. one bee bee gun, a black powder gun, and a rifle or two (I don't keep track, since all the guns are at the house, and my dad's very loose about who they belong to. I'll probably get most of them when he passes on, anyways, so, eh).

It's about training you to respect guns for what they are, not just age. My family introduces everyone to guns and alcohol when we're still learning to tie our shoes, and they're fairly open about sexuality, especially when I was an only child. The result? I grew absolutely uninterested in alcohol of any kind by age 12, have never had any sort of accident with guns even though my parents actually showed me where they kept a loaded pistol in case someone came over when they were away, and have a very safe and sane and patently fun sex life (Appearantly I'm edible. Bwahaha.).

Just about education.

I think more interesting is the legal history behind Roe v. Wade, as well as the possibility that it could be brought back to the Court and overturned using Bowers v. Hardwick and then the subsequent ruling of Lawrence v. Texas.

ANYWAY, back on topic.

What you're talking about is overhauling the entire justice system by eliminating state courts and subsequently state laws. In doing so, you take away the ability of states to legislate. If every court is a federal court - as would be required so that every court had the same "standard" [impossible: different juries, judges, evidence, context] - then these federal courts will only enforce federal law, since saddling different federal courts with additional state laws would therefore change the kinds of laws and the punishments/rulings on them depending on the state you're in, therefore invalidating the process in the first place.

Therefore, states would not be able to make laws, as laws are ultimately enforced in court. Only federal laws would have power. State laws would go unenforced; state legislatures would be powerless.

The ultimate end would be the destruction of the federalist system.