# Woman kills 3 week old baby, eats it



## Hockey

including the brain






> *Monday, July 27, 2009* SAN ANTONIO - A woman charged with murdering her 3 1/2-week-old son used a knife and two swords to dismember the child and ate parts of his body, including his brain, before stabbing herself in the torso and slicing her own throat, police said Monday.
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j65NeeVH5ihfMyvu7qiBZWQBV-kgD99NR7IO0


Screw trying to "help" her.  She can't be helped.


----------



## usafmedic45

Pardon my language but that is one sick :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: and a perfect example of why we have the death penalty.


----------



## Hockey

usafmedic45 said:


> Pardon my language but that is one sick :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: and a perfect example of why we have the death penalty.




But but, she needs help, not death! She can be SAVVEEEEEEEEEEED! 


She can be saved with a needle in her arm while laying on on the table


----------



## firecoins

why use a needle when you can use swords?


----------



## medichopeful

usafmedic45 said:


> Pardon my language but that is one sick :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: and a perfect example of why we have the death penalty.



Unfortunately, I don't know if the death penalty will be handed down in this case.  She may be deemed "mentally unstable", and be spared.

But we can hope.


----------



## usafmedic45

medichopeful said:


> Unfortunately, I don't know if the death penalty will be handed down in this case.  She may be deemed "mentally unstable", and be spared.
> 
> But we can hope.


Remind me again why I hate lawyers?


----------



## Sasha

medichopeful said:


> Unfortunately, I don't know if the death penalty will be handed down in this case.  She may be deemed "mentally unstable", and be spared.
> 
> But we can hope.



She is mentally ill.


----------



## usafmedic45

Sasha said:


> She is mentally ill.


And your point is?


----------



## Sasha

usafmedic45 said:


> And your point is?



She is mentally ill. She shouldn't be executed for it. I am not absolving her of any crime, and it is a terrible crime, but I don't believe mentally ill should be executed for being mentally ill.


----------



## Shishkabob

Sasha said:


> She is mentally ill.



You're telling me there are mentally stable murderers?  


Sorry, something is screwed up in your head to do a violent crime, no matter how you spin it.  Shouldn't exempt you from the punishment.


----------



## usafmedic45

Linuss said:


> You're telling me there are mentally stable murderers?
> 
> 
> Sorry, something is screwed up in your head to do a violent crime, no matter how you spin it.  Shouldn't exempt you from the punishment.


Right, especially when it's obviously untreatable.  It's a shame she didn't pull a weapon on cops and save us the cost of a trial and imprisonment.


----------



## Shishkabob

You think just like me, and your name is Steve, just like mine.





I'm scared.


----------



## Sasha

Linuss said:


> You're telling me there are mentally stable murderers?
> 
> 
> Sorry, something is screwed up in your head to do a violent crime, no matter how you spin it.  Shouldn't exempt you from the punishment.



Never did I say she doesn't deserve punishment. Death penalty? No. Life imprisonment? Yes.


----------



## Shishkabob

And never did any of us say kill her for being mentally ill.   Kill her for doing the crime.


----------



## Sasha

Linuss said:


> And never did any of us say kill her for being mentally ill.   Kill her for doing the crime.



The crime would not have been commited had she not been mentally ill, so you WOULD be killing her for being mentally ill. PPD is a terrible thing!


----------



## Shishkabob

ALL violent criminals are mentally ill in some respect.   You obviously aren't right in the head to do a violent crime.


----------



## usafmedic45

Sasha said:


> The crime would not have been commited had she not been mentally ill, so you WOULD be killing her for being mentally ill. PPD is a terrible thing!


So is circular reasoning.


----------



## medichopeful

usafmedic45 said:


> Remind me again why I hate lawyers?



Because they keep scumbags like this alive?

I hope they _do_ use the death penalty, but like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if she just got life.


----------



## subliminal1284

Its been proven serial killers have mental issues, should they not be put to death?


----------



## medichopeful

Sasha said:


> She is mentally ill. She shouldn't be executed for it. I am not absolving her of any crime, and it is a terrible crime, but I don't believe mentally ill should be executed for being mentally ill.



She wouldn't be executed for being mentally ill.  She would be executed for killing, dismembering, and eating her child.


----------



## Sasha

Linuss said:


> ALL violent criminals are mentally ill in some respect.   You obviously aren't right in the head to do a violent crime.




I disagree. 

This woman was schizophrenic with post partum depression lumped on top of that. That is beyond your normal run of the mill crazy.

I don't hope for her to be executed. I hope for her to be in jail for the rest of her life where she can recieve the help she needs.


----------



## Aidey

There is a difference between "Die you jerk, you cheated on me and now i want your life insurance money" and "The devil is talking to me through the radio and telling me the only way to save my baby is to do xyz". Sure, it's murder in both cases, but in the second case can you really expect the person to be able to rationalize?


----------



## medichopeful

usafmedic45 said:


> Right, especially when it's obviously untreatable.  It's a shame she didn't pull a weapon on cops and save us the cost of a trial and imprisonment.



I see where you are coming from, but I wouldn't want the cops to have to live with the fact they killed somebody.  Especially after all they already saw at the scene.


----------



## Sasha

Aidey said:


> There is a difference between "Die you jerk, you cheated on me and now i want your life insurance money" and "The devil is talking to me through the radio and telling me the only way to save my baby is to do xyz". Sure, it's murder in both cases, but in the second case can you really expect the person to be able to rationalize?



Exactly! Thank you, plus one!


----------



## medichopeful

Sasha said:


> I don't hope for her to be executed. I hope for her to be in jail for the rest of her life where she can recieve the help she needs.



But why does she deserve to live?


----------



## Sasha

medichopeful said:


> But why does she deserve to live?



Because she's mentally ill, perhaps?


----------



## medichopeful

Sasha said:


> Because she's mentally ill, perhaps?



It's tough for me to say that after her crime, she shouldn't be put to death.  Even with her mental illness.

But it is a tough call.


----------



## usafmedic45

medichopeful said:


> But why does she deserve to live?


Exactly.  I think once you've *eaten a baby*, you pretty much have to prove why you deserve to continue breathing not have the prosecutors argue why you deserve to die which is about as ridiculously self-evident as it gets for two reasons:  she _*ATE*_ a baby and she committed an offense above the level of jaywalking in Texas.  I think both of those show that she was definitely crazy.


----------



## Aidey

Oooo, I got Sahsa points! 

Not everyone lives in the same reality that we do. When someone is incapable to living in our reality, we should not put them to death for failing to be able to use our logic and rationale.

And exactaly, she ate a baby, there is no logic, rationale, or "sane" explanation for that. The nature of her crime pretty much proves just how mentally ill she is.


----------



## Shishkabob

Aidey said:


> There is a difference between "Die you jerk, you cheated on me and now i want your life insurance money" and "The devil is talking to me through the radio and telling me the only way to save my baby is to do xyz". Sure, it's murder in both cases, but in the second case can you really expect the person to be able to rationalize?



Who said it was the same?


Fact is, they are all screwed up in the head, and as such you should punish for the crime, not the mental capacity.


----------



## usafmedic45

Aidey said:


> Oooo, I got Sahsa points!
> 
> Not everyone lives in the same reality that we do. When someone is incapable to living in our reality, we should not put them to death for failing to be able to use our logic and rationale.
> 
> And exactaly, she ate a baby, there is no logic, rationale, or "sane" explanation for that. The nature of her crime pretty much proves just how mentally ill she is.


I don't care what logic or reality you belong to, there are just some things that David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam, the guy whose neighbor's dog told him to kill) would look at and go "No, that's just not right."   If she obviously can't be helped, then why should we let her live if she's that much of a threat to someone so innocent?  I agree only to life imprisonment being a justifiable punishment only if she is not given protective custody and all the other inmates are told exactly what she did.


----------



## Hockey

Sasha said:


> She is mentally ill. She shouldn't be executed for it. I am not absolving her of any crime, and it is a terrible crime, but I don't believe mentally ill should be executed for being mentally ill.



She should be executed.  What is life in prison going to accomplish?  Waste taxpayers money? There is no hope for someone like her



Sasha said:


> Never did I say she doesn't deserve punishment. Death penalty? No. Life imprisonment? Yes.



Life wasting taxpayers money



Sasha said:


> The crime would not have been commited had she not been mentally ill, so you WOULD be killing her for being mentally ill. PPD is a terrible thing!



Yep.  It'd be good if they did



Sasha said:


> I disagree.
> 
> This woman was schizophrenic with post partum depression lumped on top of that. That is beyond your normal run of the mill crazy.
> 
> I don't hope for her to be executed. I hope for her to be in jail for the rest of her life where she can recieve the help she needs.



And again, from the pockets of people like you and me


Shes a waste of oxygen.  She will provide no good on this planet.  If they do give her life, hopefully she'll find a sheet and do whats best


Remember, that baby doesn't have a chance to grow up and be like any of us now.




Sasha said:


> Because she's mentally ill, perhaps?




And what is she going to do while living?  Play courtyard basketball?



Linuss said:


> Who said it was the same?
> 
> 
> Fact is, they are all screwed up in the head, and as such you should punish for the crime, not the mental capacity.



Exactly


----------



## Aidey

How do you know she can't be helped? How do you know what the nature of her illness is? Or what medications she has been on or not been on? 

There is also something called "post-partum psychosis", it occurs in something like 1 in 1000 women after they give birth, and basically their hormones go so out of whack they develop psychosis. It's possible that this is what happened in this case.

Could you guys possibly be any more judgmental? I would hate to be a mentally ill patient in your ambulance.


----------



## Shishkabob

Aidey said:


> How do you know she can't be helped? How do you know what the nature of her illness is? Or what medications she has been on or not been on?
> 
> There is also something called "post-partum psychosis", it occurs in something like 1 in 1000 women after they give birth, and basically their hormones go so out of whack they develop psychosis. It's possible that this is what happened in this case.


*Cough* Andrea Yates *cough*

Should have been killed too.





PS-- What's with Texas and these women?  Jeez.


----------



## Hockey

Aidey said:


> How do you know she can't be helped? How do you know what the nature of her illness is? Or what medications she has been on or not been on?
> 
> There is also something called "post-partum psychosis", it occurs in something like 1 in 1000 women after they give birth, and basically their hormones go so out of whack they develop psychosis. It's possible that this is what happened in this case.
> 
> Could you guys possibly be any more judgmental? I would hate to be a mentally ill patient in your ambulance.



Too bad too sad.  What do you want for them to do?  Lock her in a 10X10 cell for the rest of her life?  Whats that going to solve?

You would hate to be a patient of mine?  Well, you are comparing someone who has a mental issue to a cold blooded murderer.


I don't need to know what meds she was on or anything like that.  She committed the crime.  Time for punishment.  Next...



Linuss said:


> *Cough* Andrea Yates *cough*
> 
> Should have been killed too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS-- What's with Texas and these women?  Jeez.




Yep


----------



## medichopeful

It's tough for me to say what my stance is on cases like this.  Do I want her to be executed?  Yes.  But I also realize that she may not have been able to help herself.  I am NOT saying her actions were right.  It's just a bad situation.


----------



## Hockey

medichopeful said:


> It's tough for me to say what my stance is on cases like this.  Do I want her to be executed?  Yes.  But I also realize that she may not have been able to help herself.  I am NOT saying her actions were right.  It's just a bad situation.





Yes, but again my point I raise, what good is going to do keeping her alive?  She took a human beings life.  Adolf Hitler was mentally ill.  Does that mean if we captured him, we should have locked him up?  Same thing with Hussein, Osama, Obama etc etc 


oops


----------



## Aidey

As medical professionals we are not supposed to judge our patients or treat them any differently based on their situation. You are crying for this woman's blood, how could you treat her, or someone like her without letting your judgment show? Would you really honestly be able to take care of this woman just like anyone else (remember, she did have injures)?

Historical comparisons are moot. You can't judge Hitler by today's standards. Hitler was a product of his time and the environment of those decades. Before you attack him, you may want to look into the history of eugenics in the US around the late 1800's to the 1930's and 40's. We were just as bad as Hitler was, just not on the same scale.


----------



## Sasha

Hockey said:


> She should be executed.  What is life in prison going to accomplish?  Waste taxpayers money? There is no hope for someone like her
> 
> 
> 
> Life wasting taxpayers money
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  It'd be good if they did
> 
> 
> 
> And again, from the pockets of people like you and me
> 
> 
> Shes a waste of oxygen.  She will provide no good on this planet.  If they do give her life, hopefully she'll find a sheet and do whats best
> 
> 
> Remember, that baby doesn't have a chance to grow up and be like any of us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is she going to do while living?  Play courtyard basketball?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly



So becuase you think her life is worthless she should be killed? I would think her family would disagree. 



> *Cough* Andrea Yates *cough*




Was also suffering post partum depression. 

Can we take this thread in a productive direction? What programs are available in your area for people suffering PPD? Is there help? Do you think babies should be able to go home with or remain with women with PPD before they seek treatment for it?


----------



## EMTinNEPA

She killed an innocent child.  Because of her insanity and cruelty, that child will never get to grow up, fall in love, go to school, start a family, or any of the things that we look forward to in life.  I don't care how "mentally ill" she is.  Life is life, and if you take defenseless life and blame an imaginary being from mythology for it, you don't deserve life.


----------



## Shishkabob

What I think some anti-capital punishment people are missing is you aren't punishing them for being mentally ill, retarded, or themselves.   You're punishing them for doing a crime, whether they had a choice or not.


If they didn't have a choice, then obviously they are a much bigger threat.


----------



## Sasha

Linuss said:


> What I think some anti-capital punishment people are missing is you aren't punishing them for being mentally ill, retarded, or themselves.   You're punishing them for doing a crime, whether they had a choice or not.
> 
> 
> If they didn't have a choice, then obviously they are a much bigger threat.



So say someone held a gun to your head and told you if you didn't shoot someone that they would shoot you, and you shot the person, that you should go to jail for it? After all, you had no choice.

Are we going to make this a productive thread or not?

and I am not anti capital punishment. But I don't think people who are mentally incompentent should be killed.


----------



## Aidey

What you are missing is the fact that if her problem is fixed, she may be able to be just as productive as any of us.

Pre-hospitally I'm not aware of any programs in my area. If we suspect someone is suffering from PPD we notify the MD at the hospital.


----------



## medichopeful

Hockey said:


> Yes, but again my point I raise, what good is going to do keeping her alive?  She took a human beings life.  Adolf Hitler was mentally ill.  Does that mean if we captured him, we should have locked him up?  Same thing with Hussein, Osama, Obama etc etc
> 
> 
> oops



I hope you didn't just compare the president of the United States to Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden.

I don't know what good it will do to keep her alive.  Probably none.  But it is just a bad situation.  

We have to remember, even though what she did is unforgivable, she is not an animal to be destroyed because it is difficult to keep her around.  I wish I could just say "she took a life, take her's."  But in good conscience, I can't.  I know earlier in the thread, I was saying "kill her."  I was just angry.  Now, I don't know.


----------



## Hockey

Aidey said:


> As medical professionals we are not supposed to judge our patients or treat them any differently based on their situation. You are crying for this woman's blood, how could you treat her, or someone like her without letting your judgment show? Would you really honestly be able to take care of this woman just like anyone else (remember, she did have injures)?


I wouldn't have to worry about that around here.  You do that around here you don't make it to jail



> Historical comparisons are moot. You can't judge Hitler by today's standards. Hitler was a product of his time and the environment of those decades. Before you attack him, you may want to look into the history of eugenics in the US around the late 1800's to the 1930's and 40's. We were just as bad as Hitler was, just not on the same scale.



Sorry I will attack him.  I don't support a mass murderer



Sasha said:


> So becuase you think her life is worthless she should be killed? I would think her family would disagree.
> 
> 
> /snip



Her husband is surely disagreeing with your statement it sounds like


----------



## Sasha

> I don't know what good it will do to keep her alive. Probably none. But it is just a bad situation.



Since when do we keep people alive based on their ussefulness? We don't euthanize vegetables, do we? So why is productivity an issue?


----------



## EMTinNEPA

Aidey said:


> What you are missing is the fact that if her problem is fixed, she may be able to be just as productive as any of us.



So some "doctor" will say that they _think_ (since it will be impossible to produce anything empirical) that the woman is ready to go on with her life, refer her to a shrink (who she probably won't bother to see) and a few prescriptions (which she may be compliant with for a few weeks before not bothering to fill her perscriptions), she'll disappear for a while, only to be found a few months later using her mother's body as a teddy bear.

I don't care if she's "sick".  She murdered an innocent child.  If I have cancer, does that give me carte blanche?


----------



## medichopeful

Hockey said:


> I wouldn't have to worry about that around here.  You do that around here you don't make it to jail



That is kind of a scary statement to make.  Everybody deserves the right to a trial.


----------



## Sasha

EMTinNEPA said:


> So some "doctor" will say that they _think_ (since it will be impossible to produce anything empirical) that the woman is ready to go on with her life, refer her to a shrink (who she probably won't bother to see) and a few prescriptions (which she may be compliant with for a few weeks before not bothering to fill her perscriptions), she'll disappear for a while, only to be found a few months later using her mother's body as a teddy bear.
> 
> I don't care if she's "sick".  She murdered an innocent child.  If I have cancer, does that give me carte blanche?



Cancer is not a mental illness. Schizophrenia and PPD is.


----------



## medichopeful

Sasha said:


> Since when do we keep people alive based on their ussefulness? We don't euthanize vegetables, do we? So why is productivity an issue?



Actually, we do, in a way, euthanize vegetables.  Isn't pulling somebody off life support "euthanizing"?


----------



## medichopeful

If she is found to be competent, I say execute her.  If not, I say life without the possibly of parole.


----------



## Sasha

medichopeful said:


> Actually, we do, in a way, euthanize vegetables.  Isn't pulling somebody off life support "euthanizing"?



No. They are not given a nice pretty death, and they can be kept alive despite the fact they have zero quality of life.


----------



## EMTinNEPA

Sasha said:


> Cancer is not a mental illness. Schizophrenia and PPD is.



What if I have a brain tumor?

And way to miss the point.  A murderer is a murderer, regardless of their motives.  If we excuse everybody with a mental illness from the death penalty, you'll see a significant increase in the number of defendants pleading insanity.


----------



## medichopeful

EMTinNEPA said:


> If we excuse everybody with a mental illness from the death penalty, you'll see a significant increase in the number of defendants pleading insanity.



Very, VERY good point.  That is something I will have to take into consideration.


----------



## Sasha

EMTinNEPA said:


> What if I have a brain tumor?
> 
> And way to miss the point.  A murderer is a murderer, regardless of their motives.  If we excuse everybody with a mental illness from the death penalty, you'll see a significant increase in the number of defendants pleading insanity.



A brain tumor, again, is not a mental illness.

You are missing the point. This isn't your run of the mill crazy. This woman probably doesn't function inside our reality. She is a schizo. She can't be held accountable because she isn't competent. She is mentally ill. 

I don't think she should be allowed freedom again, but I don't think she should be executed, either. I think she should spend her life in prison.

And people already cop the mental illness plea left and right.


----------



## gradygirl

please tell me, did anyone else throw up in their mouths a little bit when they read this? :blink:


----------



## EMTinNEPA

medichopeful said:


> If she is found to be competent, I say execute her.  If not, I say life without the possibly of parole.



Why?  What purpose will keeping them alive possibly serve?  All they'll do is take up a cell, spend _my_ tax dollars, futily attempt "rehab" (which will be pointless since they will never be back in society again to function normally), and keep living with the possibility of one day escaping and killing again.


----------



## Hockey

EMTinNEPA said:


> What if I have a brain tumor?
> 
> And way to miss the point.  A murderer is a murderer, regardless of their motives.  If we excuse everybody with a mental illness from the death penalty, you'll see a significant increase in the number of defendants pleading insanity.





There already has been.  Sad


Almost every murder case that has the potential of capital punishment, they are reviewed because they are going to push for the insanity defense


----------



## Sasha

EMTinNEPA said:


> Why?  What purpose will keeping them alive possibly serve?  All they'll do is take up a cell, spend _my_ tax dollars, futily attempt "rehab" (which will be pointless since they will never be back in society again to function normally), and keep living with the possibility of one day escaping and killing again.



Because they are human.

Same argument can be applied to medicare and medicaid vegetables. Why? Why all the money spent keeping them alive?? 

Because they are HUMAN and because it is not your decision to make. Thankfully many understand that mental illness is not the fault of the sufferer and they should not be held responsible for it.


----------



## EMTinNEPA

Sasha said:


> A brain tumor, again, is not a mental illness.
> 
> You are missing the point. This isn't your run of the mill crazy. This woman probably doesn't function inside our reality. She is a schizo. She can't be held accountable because she isn't competent. She is mentally ill.
> 
> I don't think she should be allowed freedom again, but I don't think she should be executed, either. I think she should spend her life in prison.
> 
> And people already cop the mental illness plea left and right.



So cancer in my brain couldn't potentially affect my behavior?

And I'm still waiting to hear what the benefit of life imprisonment is when compared to execution.


----------



## Sasha

EMTinNEPA said:


> So cancer in my brain couldn't potentially affect my behavior?
> 
> And I'm still waiting to hear what the benefit of life imprisonment is when compared to execution.



I can't speak for the benefit because I have personally never experienced it, but it is not your place to decide if life imprisonment is "worth it".Thank God.

A brain tumor could affect your behavior, but then you would be mentally ill. A brain tumor by itself does not constitute mental illness as it can just sit in the brain benign and not affect behavior.


----------



## EMTinNEPA

Sasha said:


> Because they are human.
> 
> Same argument can be applied to medicare and medicaid vegetables. Why? Why all the money spent keeping them alive??
> 
> Because they are HUMAN and because it is not your decision to make. Thankfully many understand that mental illness is not the fault of the sufferer and they should not be held responsible for it.



Are they human?  Or have they lost what made them human and just become pieces of meat that their families keep alive because they aren't ready to say goodbye?

And I am _NOT_ proposing holding them responsible for their mental illness.  I want to hold them responsible for _taking an innocent life_!


----------



## gradygirl

I am not arguing one way or another, but here is the US Supreme Court's rationale.

In June 2002, the US Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the death penalty should no longer be used against offenders with mental retardation. It concluded that the penological goals of retribution or deterrence are not furthered by such use of the death penalty. On deterrence, the six Justices in the majority wrote:

      "The theory of deterrence in capital sentencing is predicated upon the notion that the increased severity of the punishment will inhibit criminal actors from carrying out murderous conduct. Yet it is the same cognitive and behavioral impairments that make these defendants less morally culpable -- for example, the diminished ability to understand and process information, to learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, or to control impulses -- that also make it less likely that they can process the information of the possibility of execution as a penalty and, as a result, control their conduct based upon that information. Nor will exempting the mentally retarded from execution lessen the deterrent effect of the death penalty with respect to offenders who are not mentally retarded. Such individuals are unprotected by the exemption and will continue to face the threat of execution. Thus, executing the mentally retarded will not measurably further the goal of deterrence."

On the question of the retributive goal of the death penalty, the Atkins majority continued: "With respect to retribution -- the interest in seeing that the offender gets his just deserts -- the severity of the appropriate punishment necessarily depends on the culpability of the offender". The death penalty assumes absolute, 100 per cent culpability, on the part of the condemned. If there is any diminished culpability, then the retributive goal fails, as the punishment becomes disproportionate. In Roper v. Simmons in March 2005, the Court found the same in the case of children under 18 years old at the time of the crime: "Once the diminished culpability of juveniles is recognized, it is evidence that the penological justifications for the death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults". So, too, with the seriously mentally ill.


----------



## Sasha

EMTinNEPA said:


> Are they human?  Or have they lost what made them human and just become pieces of meat that their families keep alive because they aren't ready to say goodbye?
> 
> And I am _NOT_ proposing holding them responsible for their mental illness.  I want to hold them responsible for _taking an innocent life_!



Which would not have happened had they not been mentally ill, so you ARE penalizing them for their mental illness.

This thread has the potential to turn into a good discussion about PPD if people could put aside their closeminded views for 10 seoncds. 

I found this to be a good read on the subject, especially this tidbit.

*Postpartum Depression*
Full Article: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/271662-overview


> Postpartum psychosis is the most severe form of postpartum psychiatric illness.
> 
> The condition is rare and occurs in approximately 1-2 per 1000 women after childbirth.
> 
> At highest risk are women with a personal history of bipolar disorder or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis.
> 
> Postpartum psychosis has a dramatic onset, emerging as early as the first 48-72 hours after delivery. In most women, symptoms develop within the first 2 postpartum weeks.
> 
> The condition resembles a rapidly evolving manic or mixed episode with symptoms such as restlessness and insomnia, irritability, rapidly shifting depressed or elated mood, and disorganized behavior.
> 
> *The mother may have delusional beliefs that relate to the infant (eg, baby is defective or dying, infant is Satan or God), or she may have auditory hallucinations that instruct her to harm herself or her infant.*
> 
> *Risks for infanticide and suicide are high among women with untreated postpartum psychosis*.



I have to wonder, if someone had recognized trouble brewing and gotten her help, would this have been prevented? Should she have gotten prophylactic help with her history of schizophrenia?


----------



## EMTinNEPA

Sasha said:


> I can't speak for the benefit because I have personally never experienced it, but it is not your place to decide if life imprisonment is "worth it".Thank God.



No, it isn't my place.  Nor is it yours.  Which is why we have to elect representatives who will use LOGIC and REASON to determine the best course of action.  Life imprisonment is a waste of valuable resources on a person who will never be a productive member of society again.



Sasha said:


> A brain tumor could affect your behavior, but then you would be mentally ill. A brain tumor by itself does not constitute mental illness as it can just sit in the brain benign and not affect behavior.



So it is possible to have something wrong with your head, but give no outer appearance of any problem?  If this is the case, we also have to accept the possibility that somebody could have NOTHING wrong with their head and give the outer appearance of severe insanity.  And of course, there are no definitive tests, so if somebody acts cuckoo for cocoa puffs, we have no choice but to accept their insanity because we can't debunk it.

Ergo, pleading insanity becomes a way to commit a murder and score free room and board for life.  If you give murderers who are genuinely mentally ill a break, then murderers who are not genuinely mentally ill will seek the same break simply because the insanity they claim to be afflicted with can't be disproven.  We can prove somebody doesn't have cancer.  We can prove somebody doesn't have lupus.  We can prove somebody doesn't have an allergy.  The same cannot be said for a mental illness.


----------



## EMTinNEPA

Sasha said:


> Which would not have happened had they not been mentally ill, so you ARE penalizing them for their mental illness.



Ah, the transitive property of penalization.  I wouldn't have killed that man if I hadn't been taking a walk that night.  You can't put me to death because you can't penalize me for taking a walk.


----------



## Hockey

Guys I'm going to bed.  Don't make this discussion too lengthy since I hate having to go through 10 pages


----------



## gradygirl

Ok everyone, before we start picking stuff up and throwing it at each other, please consider the following:

a) an insanity plea must be accepted by both the defense and the prosecution;
b) insanity pleas are only used in 1% of cases;
c) insanity pleas are incredibly hard to win.

And before anyone keeps arguing, please read this, it gives a TON of insight into the truth of insanity pleas.

The Insanity Defense: Bad, Mad, or Both?

As this article says, insanity pleas are stigmatized relentlessly by the media, so let's do our research before we further stigmatize this misunderstood information.


----------



## reaper

I am just wondering how any of this is "EMS News" related?

But, boy it is fun to see the ignorance shine through!


----------



## Hockey

reaper said:


> I am just wondering how any of this is "EMS News" related?
> 
> But, boy it is fun to see the ignorance shine through!



I wish they changed the name of this section.  Make it Current Events


----------



## Sasha

EMTinNEPA said:


> Ah, the transitive property of penalization.  I wouldn't have killed that man if I hadn't been taking a walk that night.  You can't put me to death because you can't penalize me for taking a walk.



That is a ridiculous analogy... because there is a huge difference between taking a walk and being schizophrenic, which is not the fault of the patient.


----------



## el Murpharino

EMTinNEPA said:


> Why?  What purpose will keeping them alive possibly serve?  All they'll do is take up a cell, spend _my_ tax dollars, futily attempt "rehab" (which will be pointless since they will never be back in society again to function normally), and keep living with the possibility of one day escaping and killing again.



It actually costs more to put someone through the many, many court proceedings they are allowed, among other "benefits", before being sentenced to death...unless the defendant denies those appeals.   

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/09/death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison/


----------



## Sasha

Hockey said:


> I wish they changed the name of this section.  Make it Current Events



Why? This i an EMS forum, you want current events go to a general forum somewhere else.


----------



## Medic744

This woman comitted a horrible crime and she is still liable for her actions but she does have a mental defect that went untreated by either lack of knowledge or just ignoring it by both her family and the healthcare and judicial system.  In the articles on this incident you will read that the father of the child is also schizophrenic and the mother had a history of mental illness.  The father wants the death penalty for her but as far as I am concerned the death penalty should be reservered for those that have no remorse.  No matter how horrible we think what she did is once she recieves the necessary treatment and is in the right mentality again there is no sentence that a jury can give her that will be worse than the one she gives herself.  To wake up every morning knowing what you have done and having that memory and having to live with it is far more punishment than anyone else can hand down.  This woman would not have been treated any different in the back of my unit than anyone else.   Anybody that takes a life by choice has some mental defect but there is a difference in each case.  Proving mental defect/illness in a court of law takes a lot of proof.  Andrea Yates, this woman, and the woman in Dallas that cut off her babies arms are all examples of being failed by the systems and their families. Im not saying that she is not at fault but I am saying that she has a good chance at rehabilition.  Also Andrea Yates set a precedence in Texas for mothers with PPD and if this woman does plead out she most likely will end up in a mental hospital to recieve treatment as opposed to any jail time.


----------



## Sail195

I am really disturbed by this one.... I am speechless and let me tell you that does not happen often!


----------



## Burlyskink

I think she should be executed, as far as i'm concerned that would be doing her a favor. If you think about it, there may be times where she is stable and then she will think of what she did.


----------



## Shishkabob

el Murpharino said:


> It actually costs more to put someone through the many, many court proceedings they are allowed, among other "benefits", before being sentenced to death..



And that, like many other things, needs to be fixed.


----------



## MendoEMT

el Murpharino said:


> It actually costs more to put someone through the many, many court proceedings they are allowed, among other "benefits", before being sentenced to death...unless the defendant denies those appeals.
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
> 
> http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/09/death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison/



Very true.  The sheer cost of the process involved in execution is mind boggling.  Instead, I say that you take those sickos out of protective solitary and throw them in with the general prison population, much more efficient!!


----------



## DrankTheKoolaid

*re*

Quite the discussion here.  My opinion is this.  If her DOA turns up negative then sure PPD go for life without parole.   If her drug screen turns up positive fry her arse


----------



## WannaBeFlight

Sasha said:


> Never did I say she doesn't deserve punishment. Death penalty? No. Life imprisonment? Yes.



What good is Life Imprisonment going to do? She will not recieve medications that will help Psychosis with fixed illusions and auditory hallucinations. There is no drug out there that can fix those. I work on a Psych ward, and we see that all of the time.   

Oh yeah, and one more worthless person to live off of my hard earned money. Yay Taxes and Jails!(sarcasm) <_<


----------



## Cory

I would much rather see this b$%^& rott in a small cell for the rest of her life. All of you gung-ho death penalty people seem to forget how bad jail really is. Especially menatl ward prisons.

She doesn't deserve the easy way out. She needs to rott away.



Ummmmm... correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the article said she cut her torso and slit her throat. Is she even still alive???


----------



## Shishkabob

Yeah, prison is bad, but you feeding, clothing, and sheltering a horrible human for the rest of their lives.  Whether or not it's more expensive is really a moot point.  Fact is, you providing for them to live for the rest of their lives.  They will die in the prison eventually, why put it off?


----------



## WannaBeFlight

Linuss said:


> Yeah, prison is bad, but you feeding, clothing, and sheltering a horrible human for the rest of their lives.  Whether or not it's more expensive is really a moot point.  Fact is, you providing for them to live for the rest of their lives.  They will die in the prison eventually, why put it off?



And alot of jails have tv's in the prisoners cells, computers, candy canteens and all of the other items we enjoy as free people. Even Mental Hospitals and wards have all of the benefits of home. There truly is no help with her diagnosis, it never gets better, it just progresses and worsens over time and this is way more than just post partum depression.


----------



## Hockey

WannaBeFlight said:


> What good is Life Imprisonment going to do? She will not recieve medications that will help Psychosis with fixed illusions and auditory hallucinations. There is no drug out there that can fix those. I work on a Psych ward, and we see that all of the time.
> 
> Oh yeah, and one more worthless person to live off of my hard earned money. Yay Taxes and Jails!(sarcasm) <_<





Jails can be good for "minor to medium" offenses.  For murder that is cold blooded, no good can be from keeping them locked up.


Again, hopefully she'll find some sheets


----------



## Hockey

Cory said:


> I would much rather see this b$%^& rott in a small cell for the rest of her life. All of you gung-ho death penalty people seem to forget how bad jail really is. Especially menatl ward prisons.
> 
> She doesn't deserve the easy way out. She needs to rott away.
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmm... correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the article said she cut her torso and slit her throat. Is she even still alive???





Have you been in a jail?  I've spent some time in a jail and prison and let me tell ya, its not as bad as one makes it out to be.  Sure its not as nice as the outside...


I surely wouldn't want to be in jail or prison though.


----------



## Cory

Linuss said:


> Yeah, prison is bad, but you feeding, clothing, and sheltering a horrible human for the rest of their lives.  Whether or not it's more expensive is really a moot point.  Fact is, you providing for them to live for the rest of their lives.  They will die in the prison eventually, why put it off?



Not for all inmates. They don't give them to people who are totaly mentally unstable. You think you know how prisons go, but you seem to forget prison guards are the ones who are in control of that struff. They could beat her 24/7 and no one would make a satement. Again, prisons aren't as nice as you think. Especially the kind she is going to.


----------



## rescue99

Okay Hockey, that was TMI..lol! 

This thread has gone the gamut. Prolly time to let the justice system play out IMHO.


----------



## Shishkabob

Cory said:


> Not for all inmates. They don't give them to people who are totaly mentally unstable. You think you know how prisons go, but you seem to forget prison guards are the ones who are in control of that struff. They could beat her 24/7 and no one would make a satement. Again, prisons aren't as nice as you think. Especially the kind she is going to.



I've been to Huntsville and Gatesville prisons for my criminal justice classes (frggin long drive from DFW).  I know how they are.  I also tend to think I know more about how prisons are then someone who thinks jails and prisons are synonymous.  




So you're advocating prison guards to beat the lady when she gets there?  And I'm the one that thinks prisons are too nice?


----------



## Cory

Hockey said:


> Have you been in a jail?  I've spent some time in a jail and prison and let me tell ya, its not as bad as one makes it out to be.  Sure its not as nice as the outside...
> 
> 
> I surely wouldn't want to be in jail or prison though.



On what charges. I'm guessing not for eating your son. And I'm guessing you weren't in a mental ward.


----------



## Cory

Linuss said:


> I've been to Huntsville and Gatesville prisons for my criminal justice classes (frggin long drive from DFW).  I know how they are.  I also tend to think I know more about how prisons are then someone who thinks jails and prisons are synonymous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're advocating prison guards to beat the lady when she gets there?  And I'm the one that thinks prisons are too nice?



??? No I am not advocating it. I'm saying it will most likely happen.


Linuss, for some reason you seem to strike me as a religious man, am I right?


----------



## DawnParr

It said in the article that she was refusing to take her medicine... if she took the medicine in the first place, this could have most likely been prevented.  If it were me, i would rather be sain over breast feeding my baby. Just buy the formula and all would be good.  I honestly hope she gets death because this baby didn't even get a shot of living a life, so why should she. I'm not all Gun Ho Pro Death penalty but something so small and so precious didn't get a chance to be anything. so sad. :wacko:


----------



## Cory

If we give this woman the death penalty just because we are outraged that she killed a baby, then why wouldn't we give the death penalty to every woman who has an abortion? (NOT SAYING WE SHOULD!!!)

You see, it is one thing to be an angry mob and demand cruel justice, it is another thing to be playing with politics and law. The court can't just choose to do something one time, and not the next. Trust me, no matter how outraged the politicians and lawyers and judges are, they care more about their jobs and reputations.


----------



## Shishkabob

Cory said:


> If we give this woman the death penalty just because we are outraged that she killed a baby, then why wouldn't we give the death penalty to every woman who has an abortion? (NOT SAYING WE SHOULD!!!)



I guess you miss the fact that MANY people are trying to make abortions illegal, correct?  But as of now, they are legal.

And there is a difference between a pre-birth abortion, and killing a baby after it's delivered.  




> The court can't just choose to do something one time, and not the next.


Sure they can!  It's called "taking special circumstances into account"


----------



## rescue99

If this was a known psych and she was refusing to take her meds, justice would be in sterilizing her as a prevention but nooooooo....... by law, we can't do that either! She has the right to stay sick, not help herself and the right to get pregnant. I can't wait until the long acting injections are finally approved. It is possible that some of this crazy stuff can be prevented.


----------



## Sasha

People are not put to death based on how useful they are. News flash. You will pay the same amount of taxes either wat.




WannaBeFlight said:


> What good is Life Imprisonment going to do? She will not recieve medications that will help Psychosis with fixed illusions and auditory hallucinations. There is no drug out there that can fix those. I work on a Psych ward, and we see that all of the time.
> 
> Oh yeah, and one more worthless person to live off of my hard earned money. Yay Taxes and Jails!(sarcasm) <_<


----------



## Shishkabob

Sasha said:


> People are not put to death based on how useful they are. .



Correct... they are put to death for their heinous crimes.  



Just as this woman should be,


----------



## Sasha

This woman had is mentally ill and can't be held accountable for her actions


----------



## rescue99

Sasha, 

The one thing she may well be accountable for, is her decision to refuse meds in the first place. The decision led to the gruesome murder of a newborn child. Should documented evidence reveal that the mom was a productive, capable individual as long as she took proper medication, then a mental defense can only taker her so far. Justice has to play out in this situation. We are not a society that resorts to capital punishment first so don't worry.


----------



## usafmedic45

> A brain tumor, again, is not a mental illness.



Google "Charles Whitman" and then rethink your assessment that brain tumors (in the right place) and mental illness are not the same issue.  Lots of defendants have tried (some successfully) to get out of paying fully for their crimes by arguing "mental disease or defect" secondary to head injury, toxic exposures as a child, brain tumors, seizure disorders.



> This woman had is mentally ill and can't be held accountable for her actions



So says you....a LOT of people disagree with that approach but unfortunately the ACLU and the bleeding heart organizations make it nearly impossible to get the legislation passed to bar such thing touted as excuses from being used to prevent proper punishment.  It's an explanation for why they did it, not an excuse.  It's not any more an excusing factor than saying "That kid was wearing the wrong colors when he walked through my 'hood, so a little voice in my head (the result of gang indoctrination) said I should pop a cap in his *** and I did.".


----------



## Shishkabob

Sasha said:


> This woman had is mentally ill and can't be held accountable for her actions



Sure she can.  As I have said before, any and every person who chooses to partake in a violent crime is NOT normal in the head.  That doesn't excuse them, so why does it her?


----------



## Cory

Linuss said:


> I guess you miss the fact that MANY people are trying to make abortions illegal, correct?  But as of now, they are legal.



Are suggesting we _should_ make abortion punishable by execution?... if not then I don't understand the point you were makng here.


----------



## Shishkabob

Cory said:


> Are suggesting we _should_ make abortion punishable by execution?... if not then I don't understand the point you were makng here.



No.



You said;



> then why wouldn't we give the death penalty to every woman who has an abortion?



And I said we don't punish them because it's not illegal, and therefor not murder in the eyes of the law.  The only other crime that civilians can commit that is punishable by death is treason.


----------



## medichopeful

Linuss said:


> The only other crime that civilians can commit that is punishable by death is treason.



Wrong.  Here are just a few other examples (from these sites: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty#BJS)

*Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping
*Aircraft hijacking
*Aggravated rape of victim under age 13


----------



## Sasha

medichopeful said:


> Wrong.  Here are just a few other examples (from these sites: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty#BJS)
> 
> *Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping
> *Aircraft hijacking
> *Aggravated rape of victim under age 13



Yeah when is the last time you have heard of someone getting the death penalty for something that does not include murder within the US?


----------



## Shishkabob

medichopeful said:


> *Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping



You do realize bank robbery with murder is STILL murder, correct?


And I'm talking federal level, not every capital punishment state with their hard to track capital crimes that are never in the news.


----------



## medichopeful

Sasha said:


> Yeah when is the last time you have heard of someone getting the death penalty for something that does not include murder within the US?



I never said they are used often or at all.  Linuss said that the only crimes punishable by death are treason and murder.  Technically, the crimes I listed are punishable by death as well.


----------



## medichopeful

Linuss said:


> You do realize bank robbery with murder is STILL murder, correct?
> 
> 
> And I'm talking federal level, not every capital punishment state with their hard to track capital crimes that are never in the news.



Yes, I do.  But if you read it carefully, you can see that it says kidnapping is a capital offense as well if it involves a bank robbery:

"Bank-robbery-related kidnapping"

Noted about the federal level.  You may have specified, but I may have missed it.  My apologies.


----------



## Shishkabob

Naw, I didn't explicitly specificy federal.  I was going off the abortion thing which is legal federally, so it doesn't matter what the individual states think, which is where I continued with the others.


----------



## usafmedic45

Sasha said:


> Yeah when is the last time you have heard of someone getting the death penalty for something that does not include murder within the US?


I seem to recall that there was a case in Louisiana a few years (maybe five or so) where the aggravated rape of a child provoked the handing down of a death penalty decision.  Personally I think that's one punishment and a crime that needs to be combined more often right there.  However, if I recall the US Supreme Court (bunch of morons) overturned the law behind it.   I wish the Supreme Court thought more along the lines of:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/supreme_court_rules_death_penalty 

Warning: Linked video includes some vulgar language, albeit really funny.


----------



## medichopeful

Linuss said:


> Naw, I didn't explicitly specificy federal.  I was going off the abortion thing which is legal federally, so it doesn't matter what the individual states think, which is where I continued with the others.



Aha.  I just didn't connect the dots.  Long day :wacko:


----------



## Shishkabob

Now don't take what I saw as gospel.  There can be more to get the death penalty as a civilian at the federal level, I just don't know of it, and was always told it was those 2 things.


----------



## medichopeful

Linuss said:


> Now don't take what I saw as gospel.  There can be more to get the death penalty as a civilian at the federal level, I just don't know of it, and was always told it was those 2 things.



I looked through the list here, and besides murder and espionage (treason), the only other way to get death is what I said earlier: committing a bank robbery that involves a kidnapping.


----------



## Shishkabob

The website has it wrong.

The actual phrasing;



> Whoever, in committing any offense defined in this section, or in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for the commission of such offense, or in freeing himself or attempting to free himself from arrest or confinement for such offense, kills any person, or forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person, shall be imprisoned not less than ten years, *or if death results shall be punished by death or life imprisonment. *



Robbery + kidnapping is not less then 10 years.  If death happens, it can be punishable by death.


----------



## medichopeful

Linuss said:


> The website has it wrong.
> 
> The actual phrasing;
> 
> 
> 
> Robbery + kidnapping is not less then 10 years.  If death happens, it can be punishable by death.



Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Fireguy

Gloria Sanchez, Otty's aunt, said her niece had been "in and out of a psychiatric ward."           Where was child protective services on this one?  The hospital called child services after my 3 y/o nephew fell off the bed and hit his head.  Yet the delivering hospital lets the baby go home with a mentally unstable person.  Im glad they are doing thier jobs.


----------



## Pudge40

Sasha said:


> Never did I say she doesn't deserve punishment. Death penalty? No. Life imprisonment? Yes.



So you would rather have her live on your tax money for years until she dies, rather than have her killed in 5 and save the taxpayers thousands of dollars?  Exactly! Plus one for the death penalty side!


----------



## Sasha

Pudge40 said:


> So you would rather have her live on your tax money for years until she dies, rather than have her killed in 5 and save the taxpayers thousands of dollars?  Exactly! Plus one for the death penalty side!



Refer back to the post someone posted where the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison.

Sure, let her live. I pay the exact same taxes regardless if she lives or dies, we aren't prorated for how many people are in prisons.

Since everyone has such a poor opinon of the mentally ill, you could think of her as doing a public service. Two schizo parents, schizophrenia can be genetic. She saved the public from having to deal with another possible schizophrenic who may have ended up and jail eating up YOUR tax dollars. Perhaps she did it in a much more brutal way, but it is essentially the same thing you all would like to do with her.

I don't believe there was freedom of choice in her actions. She is mentally ill, mentally ill are not rational.


----------



## Sasha

el Murpharino said:


> It actually costs more to put someone through the many, many court proceedings they are allowed, among other "benefits", before being sentenced to death...unless the defendant denies those appeals.
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
> 
> http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/09/death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison/



Here, I found it for you so you don't have to search.


----------



## JesseM515

Fireguy said:


> Gloria Sanchez, Otty's aunt, said her niece had been "in and out of a psychiatric ward."           Where was child protective services on this one?  The hospital called child services after my 3 y/o nephew fell off the bed and hit his head.  Yet the delivering hospital lets the baby go home with a mentally unstable person.  Im glad they are doing thier jobs.



This is a very valid statement. This whole story gives me the creeps and it is very sad that there are people like this in the world. She obviously has SEVERE mental illness and I cant imagine being the police officers that arrived on scene to see something like that.


----------



## usafmedic45

> Refer back to the post someone posted where the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison



Only because we don't do it they way it should be: quick, cheap and brutal.  You can burn her at the stake for what?  $300 tops? 



> Perhaps she did it in a much more brutal way, but it is essentially the same thing you all would like to do with her.



No, it's not.  We want her dead because she committed a crime that any culture would perceive as at the absolute pinnacle of evil. She wanted to kill the baby for no good reason at all.  Those are totally separate issues.  Murder is murder, judicial punishment is judicial punishment.



> I don't believe there was freedom of choice in her actions.



I don't believe she did either, but then again I also don't care.  We execute dogs that have no choice in whether to attack (because of prior training by people or because they attacked someone who was taunting them or hurting them), why should a mentally unbalanced human be treated any differently?  Note: the answer does not involve "because she's a human being!".  She lost what little separated her from the animals when she ate her child, regardless of the reasons she did it.


----------



## Sasha

> Only because we don't do it they way it should be: quick, cheap and brutal. You can burn her at the stake for what? $300 tops?



Really? Are you REALLY willing to risk that? Not that there is any chance this woman didn't commit that crime, but how many people are found guilty and then later found innocent?? Do you REALLY want to take the chance of killing a totally innocent person? 

Then what would make you better than this woman? 



> She wanted to kill the baby for no good reason at all.



I don't believe she wanted to do it. I believe she did it because she's a very sick woman who needs treatment. 

Chances are the baby would have been very sick as well, so she did a public service by eliminating the baby before it had a chance to grow up and possibly hurt someone and become another burden on society.

And yes, BECAUSE she is human. I don't care that you don't think she is human anymore, you cannot take away the fact she is a living, breathing person with people who love her, care for her, and understand that she is mentally ill. However I do think that the dog euthanasia policy needs to be revised.


----------



## usafmedic45

> Then what would make you better than this woman?



I've never murdered an innocent person, so yes, I am better than her.  



> I don't care that you don't think she is human anymore, you cannot take away the fact she is a living, breathing person with people who love her, care for her, and understand that she is mentally ill.



She is a human being, but she lost any claim to the protections society affords it's law abiding citizens the day she snapped, killed and ate an innocent child.  



> you cannot take away the fact she is a living, breathing person with people who love her, care for her, and understand that she is mentally ill.



"Mentally ill" and "mentally incompotent" are two different standards that you seem to be forgetting the gap between.   Chances are YOU could meet the criteria for some form of mental illness and so could I, if one chose to apply them liberally enough.  That does not mean they we do not understand the difference between a "legal" and an "illegal" action which is all that should matter here.  You are assuming that because she has a history of mental illness that she is automatically incompetent in the eyes of the law.  That is not the case.  

While I quite frankly could care less what caused her to do it or whether she's compotent or not to stand trial under our current flawed judicial system, that is the only standard we should be concerned with.  Either way, I hope she burns in hell and meets a quick and painful end whether it be through a botched judicial execution or at the hands of one of the other mental cases you think she deserves to spend her days in the psych hospital making macaroni art with.  She had no regard for her victim's suffering, so why should I have regard for her comfort and well-being.


----------



## Sasha

> She had no regard for her victim's suffering, so why should I have regard for her comfort and well-being.



Uhhhm...she was crazy. I don't think she quite understood, and I do not think she is competent to stand trial. She wasn't normal, the normal rules of right and wrong don't apply because she did not have freedom of choice. She was mentally ill, something that is not her own fault.


----------



## usafmedic45

> I believe she did it because she's a very sick woman who needs treatment.



Technically one can view a dose of pentobarbital, pancuronium and potassium chloride as treatment, so we agree she needs treatment. 




> Chances are the baby would have been very sick as well



Did I miss something about you being qualified as a geneticist?  You don't seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation.  There is a correlation between genetic predisposition and development of schizophrenia.   It is not a 1:1 correlation (in other words: causation).  Just because you have the genes, does not mean you are going to develop the condition.  Even in studies of twins with the genetic predisposition, the chances of them developing schizophrenia were still fairly low and even when one twin did develop symptoms there was only a ~50% chance of the other doing the same.  Not exactly a causative relationship.  Saying "Oh, genetics means she's going to have schizophrenia" is a vast over simplification. It's like saying that breeding two calico cats is going to produce all calico kittens.  It will produce more calicos than you would get breeding two solid colored cats, but at the same time the same litter is likely to produce a good number of solid colored kittens. 



> However I do think that the dog euthanasia policy needs to be revised.



On this we agree.  I'm far more willing to give a dog a second chance (and this coming from someone who was badly bitten by a neighbor's dog as a child) than I am a human murderer.


----------



## usafmedic45

> Uhhhm...she was crazy. I don't think she quite understood, and I do not think she is competent to stand trial. She wasn't normal, the normal rules of right and wrong don't apply because she did not have freedom of choice. She was mentally ill, something that is not her own fault.



I never said being mentally ill was her fault.  

You seem to not recognize the difference between "mentally ill" and "incompotent".   You can not _assume_ that because she hears voice that she is immediately unable to tell you right from wrong.  As the legal saying goes, that "assumes facts not in evidence." The problem we keep running into in this thread is you're applying your own personal standards (for whatever reason you hold them) to the well-defined legal standards of insanity (or "crazy" as you like to call it).


----------



## Sasha

I am not applying my own personal standards.

But I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see either one of us coming around to the other's side.

So I'm pretty much done with this thread.


----------



## usafmedic45

> I am not applying my own personal standards.



You don't seem to be applying anyone else's standards (not medical, legal or scientific) so how else are we supposed to judge where your stances originate from?



> But I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see either one of us coming around to the other's side.



No, but then again, I was not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact you need to base your stances off something other than "I think...." or "She has to be...." or "She's crazy therefore....".   We are professionals and should base our opinions on the best evidence available while keeping within the letter and spirit of the law.  That is my argument: nothing more, nothing less. 



> So I'm pretty much done with this thread.



Thank you for a fun and mentally stimulating debate.  I am sorry to see it wind down.


----------



## Pudge40

Sasha said:


> Really? Are you REALLY willing to risk that? Not that there is any chance this woman didn't commit that crime, but how many people are found guilty and then later found innocent?? Do you REALLY want to take the chance of killing a totally innocent person?
> 
> Then what would make you better than this woman?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe she wanted to do it. I believe she did it because she's a very sick woman who needs treatment.
> 
> Chances are the baby would have been very sick as well, so she did a public service by eliminating the baby before it had a chance to grow up and possibly hurt someone and become another burden on society.
> 
> And yes, BECAUSE she is human. I don't care that you don't think she is human anymore, you cannot take away the fact she is a living, breathing person with people who love her, care for her, and understand that she is mentally ill. However I do think that the dog euthanasia policy needs to be revised.



To the first statement: Just because some are found innocent at a later date does not mean that they are innocent.

To the second statement: You are contradicting yourself you say that she did the public a service for killing a possibly mentally ill child but you will not let the public kill her for their own good. What is up with that?


----------



## usafmedic45

> To the first statement: Just because some are found innocent at a later date does not mean that they are innocent.



Excellent point.  *Cough* *OJ **cough* *cough* *Michael Jackson* *cough* *cough* *Ray Lewis* *cough* *cough* *Kobe Bryant* *cough* *cough* *Lizzie Borden* *cough* 



> To the second statement: You are contradicting yourself you say that she did the public a service for killing a possibly mentally ill child but you will not let the public kill her for their own good. What is up with that?



I took it to be arguing that it's hypocritical of us to view that we should be allowed to kill the mother when the mother _MIGHT_ have killed the child out of fear the child would turn out like she did (as a way of protecting the public from future harm).  It seemed to be an ethical conundrum she was trying to posit.   Granted, it falls apart in it's execution (pun not intended) but I understood what she was driving at.


----------



## paccookie

Hockey said:


> You would hate to be a patient of mine?  Well, you are comparing someone who has a mental issue to a cold blooded murderer.




That "someone with a mental issue" could be a very short step away from being a murderer.  (I left out the "cold blooded" part because I don't think someone who murders while in a state of psychosis qualifies as a cold blooded murderer.)


----------



## Cory

usafmedic45: Michael Jackson was found innocent both times.


----------



## medichopeful

Cory said:


> usafmedic45: Michael Jackson was found innocent both times.



Doesn't mean he didn't do it.


----------



## Sasha

Take some time to read up on the Jackson cases before you go convicting a man who not only is dead, but was found innocent. You'll find one of these boys made the "Confession" under some pretty heavy sedatives, one making the recipient very impressionable. The mother of the first boy said she didn't even think he was molested. The father left some pretty incriminating voice mails too. And the second boy, his family had a habit of gold digging and sueing on false accusations. And these accusations never "came to light" until Jackson decided he was done being taken advantage of by them.


----------



## usafmedic45

> Take some time to read up on the Jackson cases before you go convicting a man who not only is dead, but was found innocent.



Slander and libel cuts both ways.  The Jackson legal team and press machine were just as guilty of slandering the witnesses and their families as you think we are doing by making a logical deduction rather than simply relying upon the decision of a bunch of likely starstruck jurors who were apparently of questionable intellect.    



> usafmedic45: Michael Jackson was found innocent both times.



As several of us have said, being found not guilty and being proven innocent are two separate things.  You can have DNA evidence all over the freaking place (OJ anyone?) and if you have a great defense lawyer (read as: lots of money) is not a sure thing.  I believe the "innocent until proven guilty thing" but it is a point where you go "OK, there is a small chance he is innocent, but a much larger one he that he is guilty."  

Rule #1:  The answer that requires the fewest assumptions or allowances is probably correct.  In this case, that answer is that he was _most likely_ guilty.   Either way, he's dead and can't hurt anyone else.  It's a shame he didn't have an fatal accident or someone didn't put a round through his brainstem right after the _Thriller_ album so he would have gone down in history as a darn talented musician and dancer instead of as a freakishly weird recluse who was most likely a child molester.   This ranks up there as one of the sad facts in the history of modern music, along with the fact that Elvis died as an obese drug addict who gave us the phrase "pulling an Elvis" by exiting this world on his 'throne' instead of going out as a young, attractive "king of rock 'n roll".


----------



## usafmedic45

> I left out the "cold blooded" part because I don't think someone who murders while in a state of psychosis qualifies as a cold blooded murderer.



Technically sociopaths are literally the personification of "cold-blooded" (using the common definition of the phrase) since they don't have the physiological effects associated with fear most people exhibit when committing a crime or lying.


----------



## Shishkabob

Cory said:


> usafmedic45: Michael Jackson was found innocent both times.



The prosecution in a criminal court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime.


The plaintiff in a civil proceeding only needs a preponderance of evidence.






That's why OJ won the criminal case, but got his butt handed to him in the civil case like Nicole Simpson on June 12th.


----------



## djmedic913

Holy Crap!!!!


----------



## JeffDHMC

If she is so crazy she does not know better, she'll likely not know any better when it comes to the chair.


----------



## usafmedic45

I was trying to find out if they ever declared that woman insane or not but stumbled across this: http://pysih.com/2009/08/03/otty-sanchez/

That's just funny.  64% of voters think she deserves to rot in hell. LOL 

By the way, no she was not insane according to the prosecution's expert.  The final hearing will be in November.  

http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11193356



> SAN ANTONIO (AP) - The attorney for a Texas mother who allegedly told authorities the devil made her kill and mutilate her 3-week-old son said Thursday that a jail psychiatrist believes his client is mentally competent to stand trial.
> 
> A judge will consider that opinion at a November competency hearing for Otty Sanchez, 33, and make a final decision, said Ed Camara, Sanchez's attorney.
> 
> The San Antonio woman is accused of decapitating and dismembering Scott Wesley Buccholz-Sanchez and eating parts if his body in a bedroom at her sister's house in July. Police say swords were used in the attack.
> 
> Camara said a jailhouse evaluation indicates Sanchez is functional and mentally aware because of medication she is taking. But he said the report also suggests Sanchez, who is charged with capital murder, was not mentally stable at the time of the killing.
> 
> Camara said she likely will plead not guilty for reasons of mental illness.
> 
> <SNIP>


----------



## firetender

*Pledged to save lives or ready to be Executioner?*

A Confession: I, too, pledged my life in service to healing. Though I know logic tells me within that pledge there would be Zero room to take ANY life for ANY reason, I have no doubt given the proper circumstances, YES, I too would take the life of another human being. I am, however, totally opposed to the State taking life for any reason, especially for the gross immorality of taking a life! It follows, then, that I'm saying I agree the INDIVIDUAL, under certain circumstances has the right, and maybe even the OBLIGATION to take someone's life.

*AND HERE'S A (GRISLY) SCENARIO FOR THOSE OF YOU MOST FERVENT ABOUT TAKING THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN REFERRED TO IN THIS THREAD.*

Call of an unknown nature to a private residence. PD on the scene usher you into a bedroom. On the bed is a 3 month old baby, decapitated, obviously dead and with noticeable multiple bite marks out of its face and torso.

Sitting up, leaning against the bed and unconscious (according to the PD) is the mother and suspected perpetrator. Shallow breathing; lips turning blue, BP 86/68 she has a number of knife wounds on her arms, torso and neck. There is much blood on the floor and even though a Police Officer has a bandage placed in position on her neck and holding it tight, there is still blood oozing out from it. Oh, yeah...you took note of the above but spent most of your time trying to believe that you really were seeing pieces of her child dripping from her mouth and in little chunks all over her. 

*Here's your chance, Lifesavers in favor of capital punishment. You know someone's got to take care of this mess. What would you do?*


----------



## usafmedic45

firetender said:


> A Confession: I, too, pledged my life in service to healing. Though I know logic tells me within that pledge there would be Zero room to take ANY life for ANY reason, I have no doubt given the proper circumstances, YES, I too would take the life of another human being. I am, however, totally opposed to the State taking life for any reason, especially for the gross immorality of taking a life! It follows, then, that I'm saying I agree the INDIVIDUAL, under certain circumstances has the right, and maybe even the OBLIGATION to take someone's life.



So how is it any different for a group of your peers (the "state") to determine someone deserves to die versus you deciding that you have an "maybe even an obligation" to take the life of another?  Remember the "state" is you, I and every other citizen who might be called to jury duty.  It's not a mandate that someone be put to death which is why there is a penalty phase after a conviction.




> *AND HERE'S A (GRISLY) SCENARIO FOR THOSE OF YOU MOST FERVENT ABOUT TAKING THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN REFERRED TO IN THIS THREAD.*



You're posing an ethical conundrum that is not valid.  There is no comparison between participating in an execution (which I would do without hesitation in a case like this) and failing to do your duty.  Thanks for trying to make it seem like there is some comparability between the two but you need to learn how to properly put together an ethical construct before wading into a debacle of a debate like this one.

That said, I know some people who would "show code" or "slow code" the perp ("Damn...I just couldn't get her intubated....couldn't see the cords!").  It's basically the same moral judgment we make when we decide to work a cop shot through the head and while still alive at the moment obviously going to die versus working the :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: who shot him who is "more viable".  Perhaps the better analogy would be "slow coding" a patient who they don't want to survive to suffer anymore (a terminal cancer patient who has been in intractable pain), but the family demands "everything" be done, only in this case it's an argument about societal value versus the alleviation of suffering.

Like it or not, those sort of moral distinctions get made all the time...as one of my colleagues puts it "apparent societal worth is often a factor in the triage decision when you don't have enough caregivers".  We treat kids before adults, colleagues before criminals, etc.  What you're talking about is an extreme example of that sort of "value-added triage".

Personally, I would at least try to save the patient.  It's what I'm there to do after all.


----------



## reaper

usafmedic45 said:


> I was trying to find out if they ever declared that woman insane or not but stumbled across this: http://pysih.com/2009/08/03/otty-sanchez/
> 
> That's just funny.  64% of voters think she deserves to rot in hell. LOL
> 
> By the way, no she was not insane according to the prosecution's expert.  The final hearing will be in November.
> 
> http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11193356



"Camara said a jailhouse evaluation indicates Sanchez is functional and mentally aware because of medication she is taking. But he said the report also suggests Sanchez, who is charged with capital murder, was not mentally stable at the time of the killing."

There is your whole answer right there!


----------



## usafmedic45

reaper said:


> "Camara said a jailhouse evaluation indicates Sanchez is functional and mentally aware because of medication she is taking. But he said the report also suggests Sanchez, who is charged with capital murder, was not mentally stable at the time of the killing."
> 
> There is your whole answer right there!


There is a biased statement.  You're relying upon something coming out of the mouth of her defense attorney.  Also keep in mind that "mentally stable" and "legally not responsible for her actions" are two separate things.  I think these statements by her attorney are simply an attempt to contaminate the pool of potential jurors with half-truths and misconceptions. 

Like someone said in the original debate on this thread, you show me a person who kills and eats another person that is "mentally stable".


----------



## RESQ_5_1

Actually, from a "cost analysis" standpoint, it is more cost effective to keep someone incarcerated for life than to put them to death. After you calculate all the court fees, lawyer's fees, time in court, etc from the appeals process. Plus, the purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate and deter future crimes. By putting someone to death for a particular crime is supposed to act as a deterrent for anyone else considering committing the same crime. But, it seems that doesn't work. So, Capital Punishment is simply a vehicle for vengeance. To mete out a punishment on those that society feels deserve to die. Now, who are all of the people that support the death penalty to decide who should live and who should die? What absolute power do you hold to deem one life unworthy and another worth allowing to continue?

This is why I am against the Death Penalty and the Mob mentality of those that do support it. 

I recently had a patient (who has since passed) diagnosed with 8 brain tumors. Although she was more easily agitated, she wasn't at the same level of the Schizophrenics I have cared for in the past.


----------



## Onceamedic

firetender said:


> *AND HERE'S A (GRISLY) SCENARIO FOR THOSE OF YOU MOST FERVENT ABOUT TAKING THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN REFERRED TO IN THIS THREAD.*
> 
> Call of an unknown nature to a private residence. PD on the scene usher you into a bedroom. On the bed is a 3 month old baby, decapitated, obviously dead and with noticeable multiple bite marks out of its face and torso.
> 
> Sitting up, leaning against the bed and unconscious (according to the PD) is the mother and suspected perpetrator. Shallow breathing; lips turning blue, BP 86/68 she has a number of knife wounds on her arms, torso and neck. There is much blood on the floor and even though a Police Officer has a bandage placed in position on her neck and holding it tight, there is still blood oozing out from it. Oh, yeah...you took note of the above but spent most of your time trying to believe that you really were seeing pieces of her child dripping from her mouth and in little chunks all over her.
> 
> *Here's your chance, Lifesavers in favor of capital punishment. You know someone's got to take care of this mess. What would you do?*



I would take care of the patient.  I want to add that I hear a lot about the career ending call from my co-workers.  Each individual has a slightly different one, but most involve kids.  This one would be the one for me.


----------



## EMSLaw

JeffDHMC said:


> If she is so crazy she does not know better, she'll likely not know any better when it comes to the chair.



If she's so crazy that she didn't know better, and she can prove that (the burden of proof in an insanity defense is initially on the defendant), then she's not guilty by reason of insanity (or whatever the state may call it.  Guilty but insane.  Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.  Etc., etc.)

That's the classic formulation of the insanity defense, the so-called M'Naughton rule, "The defendant was laboring under such a defect of the mind that at the time of the crime he or she did not appreciate the nature or consequences of his actions or whether the act was right or wrong."  See, generally, McNaghten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843).  It's actually a fairly nuanced area.  But you can be nutty as a fruit cake and not be legally insane.  One fun part of the law is that if you acted under an insane delusion, then you are accountable under the criminal law as if the facts were as you delusionally believed they were - so if you thought the person you killed was one of the body snatchers coming to eat your brain, then you acted in "self-defense" and are not guilty by reason of insanity.  

Before everyone goes screaming, remember that a lot of states changed their insanity pleas after the attempted assassination of Ronald Regan, and it is very difficult to establish legal insanity.  Also, it's very likely someone who committed a crime like this would spend a very, very long time in a state forensic hospital, so while she might escape the death penalty, she won't be back on the street any time soon.  

Anyway...  If she is legally sane, this is a case that cries out for the harshest possible punishment.


----------



## Luno

OMG, the other "other" white meat... Sorry, couldn't help that one.


----------



## bunkie

Got to page four and wanted to stress the difference between PPD and Postpartum Psychosis. It's likely the woman had the latter with the extent of her crime. 



> Women with a personal history of psychosis, bipolar disorder or *schizophrenia* have an increased risk of developing postpartum psychosis.
> http://www.pregnancy-info.net/postpartum_psychosis.html



Lumping women who suffered from PPD into the same group with women who do things like this is pretty offensive and doesn't help the guilt they already feel for the emotions they couldn't help.


----------



## SES4

Luno said:


> OMG, the other "other" white meat... Sorry, couldn't help that one.



LMAO.  I literally LOL'ed when I read your response Luno.


----------



## foxfire

While everyone is jumping all over the mother and what she did. 
 Where was the family in all this?:glare: They must have seen the signs. If they knew she was mentaly unstable, so why did they allow the baby to stay with the woman alone? :glare: They need to get there head checked for leaving a defensless baby with a known mental  nut case.
The whole thing is repulsive. I feel sorry for the little tyke to have died is such a way.  :sad: imagine how the other children have been affected by this. They are going to need some big time counceling.

The Lord has a special place for babies in heaven.


----------



## usafmedic45

> Actually, from a "cost analysis" standpoint, it is more cost effective to keep someone incarcerated for life than to put them to death.



Only because we do it in entirely the wrong manner.  You give me twenty bucks and I'd be happy to do any of the following to her myself after she's sentenced to death:






I figure if they have you dead to rights (pun intended) for a crime- DNA, _a confession_, film of you doing it, etc- then you should have zero appeals and you should be executed the next morning at dawn.  

As for the chance of executing an "innocent" person, I have this to say to you:  _Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius_.  For those who don't read Latin, it translates as "Slaughter them all!  Surely the Lord can discern his own."  Welcome to the origins of "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out". 



> So, Capital Punishment is simply a vehicle for vengeance. To mete out a punishment on those that society feels deserve to die.



There is nothing different with punishing someone by taking their life versus life imprisonment.  The logic of your argument falls apart when you look at the fact I could just as easily argue that it's excessive or heavy-handed to punish someone by taking away their freedom in a situation like this one where there is no hope of rehabilitating the person.  Therefore, why not just give her the key to the city of San Antonio since it would simply be vengeance to lock her up for life?  All punishment is vengeance if you want to truly stop and put some thought into it.    

There's that great scene in the movie _The Punisher_ where Frank Castle explains his motivations:  "This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it's an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment."  (SOURCE: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330793/quotes)

At least from my perspective, this is a coldly calculated decision based upon her value as a poor excuse for a human being and blight upon this society versus the crime she committed.  The reasons she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent allowed under the law and that means death in the State of Texas.  



> By putting someone to death for a particular crime is supposed to act as a deterrent for anyone else considering committing the same crime. But, it seems that doesn't work.



No true student of capital punishment or for that matter, criminology, uses that argument anymore.  It hasn't been a real deterrent since we stopped hanging people as a public spectacle.  Actually it probably stopped being a true when lynch mobs fell out of favor.  Nothing says "Don't commit a crime or else" quite like the lingering possiblity of your neighbors hunting you down in the middle of the night and stringing your sorry *** up.  Unfortunately it started being used for other purposes....and well, let's not go there. 



> What absolute power do you hold to deem one life unworthy and another worth allowing to continue?



It's called the duty you have as juror to apply the law as it is written and not as you would wish it to be.   



> Now, who are all of the people that support the death penalty to decide who should live and who should die?



That's why we let 12 people decide you deserve to die versus one.  If can't get the equivalent of 8.3% of your peers to believe you're not a worthless sack of crap, then perhaps you really do deserve to die.  All it takes is one person with stances like our own little bleeding heart savior of all the downtrodden on a jury to completely blow a conviction against someone who is obviously guilty as sin, let alone get a death sentence.  It's kind of like the reverse of that promise God made to Lot regarding Soddom(you find me one good person in the city and I will not destroy it) only here it is "You should me one limp-wristed wuss on a jury and I'll show you a murderer who gets off lightly." 

Oh and just to beat anyone who is planning on calling me a horrible person for saying these things, I offer this:


----------



## Mountain Res-Q

151 Posts Deep and we need to invoke Godwin's Law
(even if that really is your ancestor... LOL)
USAF, I thought you were better than that...   
Mind you, everything you say is correct
(other than your reference to Lot and Soddom - he never asked for one good person, he asked for 50 and dwindled that down to 10 when it became clear that he could not find even that many)...
but... oh wait... watch out... here come THE LOCK...​


----------



## Sasha

> As for the chance of executing an "innocent" person, I have this to say to you: Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. For those who don't read Latin, it translates as "Slaughter them all! Surely the Lord can discern his own." Welcome to the origins of "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out".



If it was ever you, or a family or friend of yours who is wrongly accused and sentenced to death, I highly doubt that would be your slogan!


----------



## usafmedic45

> If it was ever you, or a family or friend of yours who is wrongly accused and sentenced to death, I highly doubt that would be your slogan!



Yes, but the chances of that are minimal at most.  Most people convicted are, in fact, guilty.  Unlike you, I do have faith in our justice system.  You are basing your ideas off of news reports and the way you apply the slanted and skewed data makes me strongly question whether you've ever taken a class on logic, statistics or the like.  By making that statement you exhibited several classes deductive fallacies.

1.  A base rate fallacy- you are selecting for a minority of cases where the person was wrongfully convicted.  Even among the small subset of cases that are overturned on appeal, most are overturned based not on exculpatory evidence but on procedural error or evidence that calls into question the conviction but does not outright imply the person definitively did not commit the crime.  
2. Wishful thinking.  Do I even need to explain this one?  Just in case I do, it's when you formulate a stance based upon what is appealing to you from an emotional aspect versus forming opinions based on fact.  I'm not sure why you think it's more comforting to let a lot of guilty people go free to avoid making a couple of mistakes and taking out a few people who, while they may not have committed the crimes they are being executed for, probably did something else that would excuse the oversight(s) resulting in their execution (this stance I am taking, by the way, is an example of the "just world phenomenon" which is another logical fallacy according to some), but more power to you.
3.  A selection bias due to the way you "collect your data", so to speak.  Ignoring contradictory evidence or "cherry picking" the best cases to support your stance are not going to stand up under close scrutiny.  
4.  Subjective validation- basically your statement has to be true because you want it to be true, regardless of the evidence.  See people who continue to believe in ghosts, aliens, etc despite rational explanations to the contrary and zero evidence to support the stance.
5.  The availability cascade (or availability bias) which is the scientific way of describing that old adage about "If you repeat something enough times, it becomes fact."  This is the case with the "vast numbers of exonerated death row inmates" you hear about on the news. 

Also the fact that you assume that I would without question assume that someone- simply because they are a "friend" or family member- is innocent even when the evidence says they are not is tantamount to character assassination in my book.  I may be a cold, insensitive :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: a large percentage of the time in your opinion, but that has more to do with a failure of the observer to truly understand the nature of the subject.  Above all things- love, loyalty, faith- I place value on rational thought and evidence. There is no relationship in this world that cannot be shattered by significant enough events and most people would rank capital murder as one of those "significant enough events."  

It makes me a little angry that you would assume I would abandon my beliefs solely to protect someone else from paying for their crimes.  Hell, if my brother murdered someone in cold blood, I would volunteer to put the needle in his arm.  But then again, I doubt most kids have the life experience to understand this sort of reasoning....


----------



## silver

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi
that doesnt really solve the problem at all. It in my opinion if capital punishment was used more it would just make murder a novelty.
Besides the fact many inmates, considered to have lost all their "freedom" (even though ethical decisions get made even when incarcerated), can still flourish in life post-crime. It just takes an investment on our own part...
prime example is helen prejean and her works with death row inmates.


----------



## usafmedic45

> Besides the fact many inmates, considered to have lost all their "freedom" (even though ethical decisions get made even when incarcerated), can still flourish in life post-crime. It just takes an investment on our own part...



A small minority do.  Most criminals don't "flourish" except in the sense that they "flourish" right back in the criminal element that they were in before being sent to prison.  You make regulations, laws and tailor punishments to the most despicable person to commit a crime because you have to be just and apply it even handedly (otherwise it is not justice by the technical definition).   Since most people are not able to be rehabilitated it makes sense to spend the money and expend the effort in areas that are going to makes differences such as programs to minimize the chances of new criminals being spawned (and no, I don't mean sterilization programs...) through giving them better options to lead law-abiding lives and on improved law enforcement efforts to eliminate the criminal element in those areas with serious problems thereby removing them as "role models".   The only advantage to a man on death row finding Jesus is the fact that he is going to be standing before him very shortly.  



> prime example is helen prejean and her works with death row inmates.



Oh, you mean helping them "find Jesus" so they can try to look better when they try for clemency?  Remember most of those individuals are opportunistic predators and con men at heart so I don't see the fact that a large number of them have conned a good-hearted woman in efforts to save their own skins is exactly a prime example of anything other than why we have to be cautious about any aspect of dealing with such creatures.


----------



## firetender

usafmedic45 said:


> *There is no comparison between participating in an execution (which I would do without hesitation in a case like this) and failing to do your duty.*  Thanks for trying to make it seem like there is some comparability between the two but you need to learn how to properly put together an ethical construct before wading into a debacle of a debate like this one...
> 
> ...Personally, I would at least try to save the patient.  It's what I'm there to do after all.



My point, in part, is if it's wrong to kill it's wrong to kill. For you, for me, for anyone. AND If I must take a life to save a life, I might, AND no, a state that says it's wrong to kill doesn't have the right to kill. 

I heard a number of medics screaming for the poor woman's head and hiding behind the state, urging it to do their bidding and kill the woman in revenge for her evil acts.

In the absence of a full transcript of the trial (that has not even happened!) according to the laws of the land, the woman is innocent. I heard final judgments when the woman hasn't even completed her hearings. With passion that strong, I figured, okay, who's got strength of conviction enough to say I'm so sure she's guilty, I'll pull the plug myself?

And as far as an "ethical construct" goes:

You are pledged to save lives.

To participate in an execution (as you say you'd do)

_*IS*_ failing to do your duty.


----------



## usafmedic45

> And as far as an "ethical construct" goes:
> 
> You are pledged to save lives.
> 
> To participate in an execution (as you say you'd do)
> 
> IS failing to do your duty.



Actually I didn't pledge anything- we are not subject to the Hippocratic oath and technically we are not beholden to any code of conduct while off duty (other than the "no illegal activities" clause most states have regarding licensure and certification and since it's legal in most states to execute people....).  It's a common fallacy that we in EMS tend to take a little too far in regards to the "never off duty" or "we made a pledge to protect human life".  It's a job. Get over yourself if you think otherwise.  We are under no obligation other than to do our duty while on duty and the rest of the time it matters as much if I'm the headsman for a third world despot if I so choose as it does if you decide to go out and blow away a few rats at the dump with your buddies while drinking some beers.  We all have our hobbies.   As long as I'm not executing people while on the clock for the hospital I work at or for the EMS agencies I've been involved with, I am not failing to do my duty in the slightest.  Thanks for playing.




> My point, in part, is if it's wrong to kill it's wrong to kill. For you, for me, for anyone. AND If I must take a life to save a life, I might, AND no, a state that says it's wrong to kill doesn't have the right to kill.



I see it differently.  I believe the person surrenders their right to protection under the statutes prohibiting killing the moment they act in a manner that violates the laws society has deemed sufficiently severe to warrant being consider capital offenses.  Therefore I don't view it as "killing" to execute someone anymore than I see it as "murder" to kill someone who is an immediate and eminent threat when they break into your home or killing an enemy soldier before he does the same to you. Either way you've elminated a threat and delivered an appropriate punishment.

There is a difference between "killing" (homicide) and "murder" (or manslaughter) which you are failing to see.   We aren't supposed to kill except in a narrow set of circumstances which society deems acceptable:
-Protection of our own life or that of someone else
-Protection of property (in some states)
-Judicial execution 

Just because you have a moral problem with making such distinctions does not mean that I have a problem or am a bad person or a sellout to my professions because I can nor does it mean I am violating any moral or legal standard to which I am beholden.


----------



## usafmedic45

Did anyone ever hear what happened with this case?  Has she gone to trial yet?


----------

