NationStates Jolt Archive

I guess she just might be insane if a Texas jury would declare someone to be not guilty by insanity. Yet another example of the disgusting things humans are capable of though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12203789/

You have to be kind of pretty crazy to kill your own baby.

She has a brain tumor that causes very erratic behavior. She was in a moment of insanity when that event occured.

And if only she could get it removed for free, on an NHS-style basis, rather than probably never being able to affort brain surgery.

Well she sounds.... pretty crazy, I'm not gonna lie.

Hallucinations of apostles rising from blood-covered streets proclaiming the Apocalypse? I believe that fits the legal definition of fucking nuts.

In that case, I commend 10 texans and a judge for being just. 11 Texans down, 22 million to go.:p

Well she sounds.... pretty crazy, I'm not gonna lie.

Hallucinations of apostles rising from blood-covered streets proclaiming the Apocalypse? I believe that fits the legal definition of fucking nuts.

In that case, I commend 10 texans and a judge for being just. 11 Texans down, 22 million to go.:p

I wonder why the arms were to be cut off? Something similar to that guy who killed his kid because he thought she was the anti-chirst?

I wonder why the arms were to be cut off? Something similar to that guy who killed his kid because he thought she was the anti-chirst?

It said in the article that she planned to give them to God, but it doesn't go into more detail...

It said in the article that she planned to give them to God, but it doesn't go into more detail...

Well... since God gave her the brain tumor...

Well... since God gave her the brain tumor...

Jesus must hate her. ;)

Jesus must hate her. ;)

Jesus had dibs on the left arm.

Jesus had dibs on the left arm.

Ah. Must have gambled away the right to Lucifer.

Ah. Must have gambled away the right to Lucifer.
THey were needed to reanimate him, have you never seen Full Metal Alchemist?

THey were needed to reanimate him, have you never seen Full Metal Alchemist?

Yep. Get to enjoy it on Adult Swim with such shows as Cowboy Bebop and Neon Genesis Evangelion. Great shows. :)

Wait. Jesus would come back as a Homunculus wouldn't he? :eek:

Wonderful...>.>

Voracity anyone?

I guess she just might be insane if a Texas jury would declare someone to be not guilty by insanity. Yet another example of the disgusting things humans are capable of though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12203789/

That should have been a death penalty.

I don't care what the mitigation was, when someone says they have to sever the limbs of their ten-month-old baby girl, and then her own limbs AND HEAD, and 'give them to god'... that person should be given a swift expedited visit to their creator.

Wait. Jesus would come back as a Homunculus wouldn't he? :eek:
How else do you think he performed those miracles?

How else do you think he performed those miracles?

Homunculi cannot perform Alchemy.

Homunculi cannot perform Alchemy.
They can transmute their bodies.
Blood? Wine? Duh.

Jesus was The Ultimate Funk.

Homunculi cannot perform Alchemy.

Unless they acquire a transplant from a Alchemy capable human....

That should have been a death penalty.

I don't care what the mitigation was, when someone says they have to sever the limbs of their ten-month-old baby girl, and then her own limbs AND HEAD, and 'give them to god'... that person should be given a swift expedited visit to their creator.


Look, the day a court in Texas refuses to put someone to death...we know that she must have been totally insane. I mean, this is the state where they execute people with demonstrable mental retardation. If there was any even remote chance that they could have executed her, I'm sure they would have taken it.
When Texas declines to execute someone, it's one of those absolutely sure-fire cases of "they must have a reason." Kinda like if you gave Dick Cheney a gun and put him in a field of quail and old lawyers, and he refused to take a shot. It's an absolute sign of something else going on.

Look, the day a court in Texas refuses to put someone to death...we know that she must have been totally insane. I mean, this is the state where they execute people with demonstrable mental retardation. If there was any even remote chance that they could have executed her, I'm sure they would have taken it.
When Texas declines to execute someone, it's one of those absolutely sure-fire cases of "they must have a reason." Kinda like if you gave Dick Cheney a gun and put him in a field of quail and old lawyers, and he refused to take a shot. It's an absolute sign of something else going on.

Well I think that covers it nicely. :D

True....but at least life for this I would expect.

Look, the day a court in Texas refuses to put someone to death...we know that she must have been totally insane. I mean, this is the state where they execute people with demonstrable mental retardation. If there was any even remote chance that they could have executed her, I'm sure they would have taken it.
When Texas declines to execute someone, it's one of those absolutely sure-fire cases of "they must have a reason." Kinda like if you gave Dick Cheney a gun and put him in a field of quail and old lawyers, and he refused to take a shot. It's an absolute sign of something else going on.

However, the article I read, showed some strong connotations that the 'insanity' plea was less than totally convincing.

"But prosecutor Curtis Howard said the fact Schlosser told her husband that she had "killed the baby" proved she knew what she was doing. "This is a case that could have gone both ways; we knew that," Howard said after the verdict"...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060408/ap_on_re_us/severed_arms;_ylt=AjGXLjNK_OErlvIbwXG_L9hH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-


Also, you presume I consider 'insanity' a reason NOT to demand a death penalty. You presume too much.

However, the article I read, showed some strong connotations that the 'insanity' plea was less than totally convincing.

"But prosecutor Curtis Howard said the fact Schlosser told her husband that she had "killed the baby" proved she knew what she was doing. "This is a case that could have gone both ways; we knew that," Howard said after the verdict"...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060408/ap_on_re_us/severed_arms;_ylt=AjGXLjNK_OErlvIbwXG_L9hH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-


Also, you presume I consider 'insanity' a reason NOT to demand a death penalty. You presume too much.

Texas also uses the so-called "irresistable impulse test". Link (http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/89917#THEIRRESISTIBLEIMPULSETEST) And this could be why she was judged insane.

It's also possible that even though she knew she had killed her child, she was not able to appreciate that it was wrong to do so.

Of course, there are some who believe that mental incapacity is no excuse, which is why the death penalty for minors is presumably okay sometimes.

Though how many of them are actually put to death?

How sad. I have to agree she is insane for the simple reason that someone what wants to kill their baby and understands what they are doing just shoots them, drowns them, stabs them, throws them in a dumpster, crushes their skull, smothers them, etc. They don't cut off an arm and stand there and watch. That a jury hung 10/2 in her favor on an insanity argument, after hearing a great deal of evidence that is not in the new story and that it is now shown she has a brain tumor only lends credence to the claim.

Again, I'm sad for her and her family and the child victim. This is nothing short of tragedy of the most depressing kind.

That is true, but I think they should have realized it a bit early and maybe the childs life could have been saved.

That should have been a death penalty.

I don't care what the mitigation was, when someone says they have to sever the limbs of their ten-month-old baby girl, and then her own limbs AND HEAD, and 'give them to god'... that person should be given a swift expedited visit to their creator.

Agreed, Do everyone a favor. Too bad she didn't cut her arms off first. (Wait you can't cut both arms off..) She should have decided to give her head to God First.

Wonder what an Insane Atheist would do?
Who would THEY offer the head to?

Agreed, Do everyone a favor. Too bad she didn't cut her arms off first. (Wait you can't cut both arms off..) She should have decided to give her head to God First.

Wonder what an Insane Atheist would do?
Who would THEY offer the head to?

I guess an INSANE Atheist would offer their head to 'god'... after all, they are NOT sane...?

The UT Austin Clock Tower Sniper Charles Whitman was discovered to have had a brain tumor on a postmortem autopsy as well.

That should have been a death penalty.

I don't care what the mitigation was, when someone says they have to sever the limbs of their ten-month-old baby girl, and then her own limbs AND HEAD, and 'give them to god'... that person should be given a swift expedited visit to their creator.


For what reason?

For what reason?

That she murdered her baby in a fit of insanity. I don't think it can be anymore obvious then that.

That she murdered her baby in a fit of insanity. I don't think it can be anymore obvious then that.


Which, by any reasonable or just standard of applying the death penalty would disqualify her.

It was clear that I obviously meant "for what reason should an insane person be executed."

Which, by any reasonable or just standard of applying the death penalty would disqualify her.

It was clear that I obviously meant "for what reason should an insane person be executed."

You are under the misapprehension that YOUR 'reasonable' and 'just' have some significance outside of your own head.

If the death penalty is applied in this case, whatever abberration has allegedly 'addled' the murderer's brain, can never cause the same thing to happen again.

We are creatures of habit... you know this. Once we have tasted blood, it is that much easier to slip back over that same line a second time, even if the initial 'disturbance' has been corrected.

But, aside from all that... I don't accept 'insanity' as a mitigator. I don't care if she thought she was Napoleon... you cut a 10 month old baby's arms off, they should put you in the chair.

Is it just how I read it, but it seems to me that she had told a doctor that she WANTED to cut of the childs arms as well as her own arms and head as a gift to god, why the hell was this woman not in a hospital? I see that the judge felt that her husband and priest or whatever were culpable in some way for her not getting help....the agony and terror that poor child died in does not bear thinking of.
Why do so many mentally ill people get obsessed with god? what is it about being mental that makes people get religon? Surely people around her knew that she was not in a fit state to take care of a baby?

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You are under the misapprehension that YOUR 'reasonable' and 'just' have some significance outside of your own head.

If the death penalty is applied in this case, whatever abberration has allegedly 'addled' the murderer's brain, can never cause the same thing to happen again.

We are creatures of habit... you know this. Once we have tasted blood, it is that much easier to slip back over that same line a second time, even if the initial 'disturbance' has been corrected.

But, aside from all that... I don't accept 'insanity' as a mitigator. I don't care if she thought she was Napoleon... you cut a 10 month old baby's arms off, they should put you in the chair.


For what reason should she be executed though? If she had the mental capability of a child, she should be treated like a child.

Do you think it would be acceptable to execute a ten year old if he happened to kill someone?

If she is insane, she wasnt acting as a responsible, reasonable actor and cannot justly be treated as one.

Is it just how I read it, but it seems to me that she had told a doctor that she WANTED to cut of the childs arms as well as her own arms and head as a gift to god, why the hell was this woman not in a hospital? I see that the judge felt that her husband and priest or whatever were culpable in some way for her not getting help....the agony and terror that poor child died in does not bear thinking of.
Why do so many mentally ill people get obsessed with god? what is it about being mental that makes people get religon? Surely people around her knew that she was not in a fit state to take care of a baby?

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Well, as far as I can tell, religion is an 'accepted form' of delusion... an approved 'suspension of reality'. And, for those who cannot metabolise their own psychological disturbances, religion is a nice loophole - because 'god' takes all your responsibility away... "I'm just taking orders" - The words that have probably been uttered with the most blood on them.

For what reason should she be executed though? If she had the mental capability of a child, she should be treated like a child.

Do you think it would be acceptable to execute a ten year old if he happened to kill someone?

If she is insane, she wasnt acting as a responsible, reasonable actor and cannot justly be treated as one.

Who said she had 'the mental capability of a child'? Mentally unstable is not equivalent to mentally retarded.

And, your argument is an appeal to emotion... 'if he happened to kill someone'... you make it sound accidental, like I am the ogre here. This woman did not 'happen to kill' her ten-month-old daughter. She sawed her daughter's arm's off.

Imagine it for a second... taking a child, and actually severing that child's limbs with a knife.

Don't make it sound like an accident, it was premeditated, calculated, and merciless. It was ALSO (as someone else has pointed out) a horrible way for an infant to die... the fear, the pain... even betrayal. Anyone who has looked in the eyes of a tiny child, KNOWS that their parents are their whole world.

You still seem to be under the impression that I care if she was insane. I couldn't care less. Brain chemistry or tissue damage, it is irrelevent. She was NOT acting in a momentarily suspended state... she did not stab her child to death in a passion, she carefully excised her limbs.

Well, as far as I can tell, religion is an 'accepted form' of delusion... an approved 'suspension of reality'. And, for those who cannot metabolise their own psychological disturbances, religion is a nice loophole - because 'god' takes all your responsibility away... "I'm just taking orders" - The words that have probably been uttered with the most blood on them.
So true. though its not done too much anymore.

So true. though its not done too much anymore.

I don't know... this very case is an example of someone devolving their responsibility 'up the chain of command' to the highest authority.

Who said she had 'the mental capability of a child'? Mentally unstable is not equivalent to mentally retarded.

And, your argument is an appeal to emotion... 'if he happened to kill someone'... you make it sound accidental, like I am the ogre here. This woman did not 'happen to kill' her ten-month-old daughter. She sawed her daughter's arm's off.

Imagine it for a second... taking a child, and actually severing that child's limbs with a knife.

Don't make it sound like an accident, it was premeditated, calculated, and merciless. It was ALSO (as someone else has pointed out) a horrible way for an infant to die... the fear, the pain... even betrayal. Anyone who has looked in the eyes of a tiny child, KNOWS that their parents are their whole world.

You still seem to be under the impression that I care if she was insane. I couldn't care less. Brain chemistry or tissue damage, it is irrelevent. She was NOT acting in a momentarily suspended state... she did not stab her child to death in a passion, she carefully excised her limbs.

I'm asking for what reason do you think it is just to execute an insane person, for what reason do you disregard insanity as a mitigating factor.

You need to explain how you justify the death penalty, and why insanity does not play into that justification.

For what reason should she be executed though? If she had the mental capability of a child, she should be treated like a child.
Yeah, because children are all cold-blooded murderers. Why, I remember when I was six years old and stabbed my father to death in his sleep; the whole family just laughed and laughed the next morning.
OK, so maybe the mental capacity of child doesn't compel one to murder, but assuming it did, the argument still doesn't fly. The reason children are tolerated is because they will improve, this woman won't, and because children are also physically immature (and therefore restrainable), this woman isn't.
A better analogy would be to compare this woman to an animal, irredeemable and dangerous, and in need of being put down.

Yeah, because children are all cold-blooded murderers. Why, I remember when I was six years old and stabbed my father to death in his sleep; the whole family just laughed and laughed the next morning.
OK, so maybe the mental capacity of child doesn't compel one to murder, but assuming it did, the argument still doesn't fly. The reason children are tolerated is because they will improve, this woman won't, and because children are also physically immature (and therefore restrainable), this woman isn't.
A better analogy would be to compare this woman to an animal, irredeemable and dangerous, and in need of being put down.


Except for the fact that she isnt an animal.

The comparison to a child is in terms of her ability to make decisions for which she is responsible. If she is insane, which it certainly appears she is, she is unable to make decisions in the real world for which she is responsible.

Children arent "tolerated" because they "will improve" (???) (if you can find some kind of legal or ethical basis for this claim, please do), they are held to a lower standard of responsibility because they cannot be counted on to make reasonable decisions based on the real-world the same way that adults do.

I'm asking for what reason do you think it is just to execute an insane person, for what reason do you disregard insanity as a mitigating factor.

You need to explain how you justify the death penalty, and why insanity does not play into that justification.

Yet, you start from a position yourself.

You seem to consider MY position the one that needs to be defended, but I see your position as much more untenable than my own.

You seem to think that someone who hurts, tortures... kills, because they are 'damaged', deserves to be treated differently to someone who hurts, tortures or kills because of some other reason.

How is it 'just' to punish the killer of victim A differently to the killer of victim B?

I disregard 'insanity' as a mitigating factor, because a ten-month-old baby brutally butchered is JUST AS DEAD, whether you get off on killing it, or think you are a servant of the Messiah.

I disregard 'insanity' as a mitigating factor, because it is an attempt to OBJECTIFY something entirely subjective. You are asking a jury to make a decision on culpability, based on something they can NEVER honestly know... i.e. WHAT went on in the killer's head.

How do we KNOW this woman acted for the reason she says?

Would you change your mind, if you found out she had lied, and her 'insanity' plea was bogus?


I do not need to justify my stand on the death penalty. If you take a life, you lose a life... it's not a new concept.

If anything, YOU need to justify why a gutless society's squeamishness, is valued ABOVE the logical premise that you 'excise the chaff'.

Except for the fact that she isnt an animal.
Man is a rational animal, she isn't responsible for her actions because she is inherently irrational. What does that leave us with, children?
The comparison to a child is in terms of her ability to make decisions for which she is responsible. If she is insane, which it certainly appears she is, she is unable to make decisions in the real world for which she is responsible.
What percentage of homicides are perpetrated by children? If she had left the baby out on a balcony or dropped it down an airshaft, I could see your argument.
However, instead she planned to kill it, and then she killed it. Children don't act in such a way, because even a 6 year-old is more mentally capable then to start butchering babies.
Children arent "tolerated" because they "will improve" (???) (if you can find some kind of legal or ethical basis for this claim, please do), they are held to a lower standard of responsibility because they cannot be counted on to make reasonable decisions based on the real-world the same way that adults do.
No, children are tolerated because they will get better. That we refer to them as children implies that they are maturing. That they are maturing demonstrates improvement. If the child has no capacity to improve, then they're just a lump of flesh (human-shaped) that possesses sub-human mental abilities, like a monkey.

Except for the fact that she isnt an animal.


Of course she is.

We all are.

We just don't all ACT like it.

Oh - and when we see this behaviour IN AN 'ANIMAL', we do not hesistate to terminate that animal.

It is ironic that society is MORE humane, in this regard, to those less human.

they should have fried here...i mean hell if we cant depend on texas to follow thru on the death penalty, who can we