Woman kills 3 week old baby, eats 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]

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]

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]

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]

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?