Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Agree with mental illness Miko, except the last 40 years the left has made it practice to exploit these cases and convincing jury's that things such as "PMS" is why she killed her husband, etc. etc.
True. But scum will always exploit things to their advantage. That is not a reason for rational and honest people to automatically jump to the opposite side on every issue where they are involved. Even a broken clock displays correct time twice a day (if only we knew when).
The law is the law. If some objectionable people support it, it is not a reason to object.
Westy: I was horrified and quite effected by what that monster did to her 5 kids back then.
These groups climbing aboard some trumped up morality wagon is just putrid vile on top of the initial act. Unlike a driver who knows well in advance that exceeding speed limit or drinking or changing lanes without signalling subjects many other people to risk of death of injury, an insane person is not rational and not in control of his/her actions, hence cannot be guilty or morally responcible.
So the point here is wether she was insane or not. I think
many of the people involved in her defence have enough knowlege about mentall ilnesses to believe that she really was insane and should not stand trial.
Those people want to see justice served and do not want ignorant people like some of you here to kill her just because they do not like what she did.
There are many depressed people out there but severe cases happen so rarely that her relatives could not think of her committing such an act. I would hardly accuse them of negligence. I am sure that henceforward relatives/psychiatrists of other post-partum depressed women will keep better track of them and their medication intake.
miko
P.S. I am not a bleeding-heart liberal. Far from it. I am a strong proponent of death penalty, just not in this case. I mean, if she was rational, she should die but I do not know if she is and I know enough that her story seems reasonable to me. That is why we have due process.
It seems silly to me to punish people for the result of the actions if the intent is what's important. If some wannabe-killer is a bad shooter or, worse, maimed a victim for life instead of killing him/her, how come he gets away easier?
So a guy who changes lanes without signalling while other cars present should be treated as attempted manslaughter and at least given a few years in jail. But the law is the law.
P.P.S. Talking of negligence. I recently read general Dolittle's (famous B-25 Tokyo raid) book.
The strategic B-17 bombers under his command were given a task of close support of ground troops in Europe. They had to fly long the front line and bomb german positions few hundred feet from the allied positions with wind blowing toward the allies.
The leading group accidentally bombed the allied location (ammo dump?) that caused a lot of smoke. All subsequent groups (scores of bombers) did not care to check their own locations and confirm target acquisition but just bombed around the smoke. Hundreds of dead US soldiers in minutes.
All responcible for that gross negligence were given strict talking-to.
