Jugular, honey. It’s spelled jugular.
Unless, of course, your veins have opposable thumbs and are capable of throwing objects into the air and catching them. In which case, you’re so cool, you don’t need spelling.
I don’t have children, and I probably never will. However…if I did, but in an attack of madness brutally murdered them, I’d probably kill myself as soon as I regained anything approaching sanity. That, or the horror of what I’d done would just drive me completely “gibbering insane.” Maybe both.
Susan Smith was not insane, and deserves her sentence.
HUH?
Being sane is not a prerequisite to bearing children. She was probably whack before she even had them, maybe not. But what is clear is that when someone says “God told me to kill so and so”–they are sick. And they need help.
I have two young boys and this story saddens me too. I am also a person who supports capital punishment. But I don’t think this woman is sane. She needs to be helped before she can understand the gravity of what she did.
I don’t understand defending a mother who kills her own children, despite mental illness issues. She took the lives of her young sons, and as such is a murderer.
It certainly hasn’t been conclusively established that she had a mental illness severe enough to mean she didn’t understand legal right from legal wrong. The defense has lined up witnesses to say so, and the prosecution is making a case against. The defense is not de facto correct, and legal culpability is often a tricky issue, never clear cut at all.
People acting out of religious belief cannot be reflexively classified as insane just because other people don’t buy their religious convictions, nor can they be declared incompetant simply because they did something unthinkable. It looks as if the prosecution is aruging that just because someone is convinced that God ordered them to do something is irrelevant: the question is whether they knew it was against the law. If they did, then they have no excuse for avoiding the punishments of the law, no matter what God had to say about it. That’s a fairly solid argument. Unless you are willing to label all people’s experiences with God insanity, which is pretty extreme and objectionable to most people, then you are going to have to deal with cases in which people think that God directed them to do things, and how the legla system must respond.
Let’s say that a strong and powerfull man took control of you, put a knife in your hand, and forced your hand to stab your kids to death.
Should you be punished? After all, it was your hand that did it. Would that make you a murderer?
I’d say that a truly insane person would be no guilty of murder if they killed someone as a result of their illness than you would be in the above scenerio.
Technically, yes, she did murder them. But if she is found to be insane, she can’t be held responsible. As Miller said,
Emotionally, I hear ya.
But that isn’t how our justice system works.
Umm… because if you are so mentally ill that you classify as being legally insane, you’re unable to understand that what you’re doing is wrong?
She was found not guilty by dint of exactly this.
Though I’ve still yet to read the evidence that demonstrates that she didn’t know right from wrong. In fact, her testimony actually seems to show that she did know it was wrong, and did it because she thought God was telling her to do it.
Her testimony shows that she didn’t want to do it, which is not the same as knowing it was wrong. In her mind, it seems that she was in precisely the situation Blalron hypothesized about above: God was holding a gun to her head to make her kill her children.
Blonde, a question: do you believe that mental illness is ever a viable defence for commiting any crime?
God was ordering her to do it, but I didn’t hear anything about a metaphorical gun to her head. Granted, the news stories I’ve read haev given very limited quotes and explanations of the key issues.
No, but more than just that suggested she knew that it was wrong. Remember, by “wrong” we don’t mean “some person’s moral view of what’s wrong” but rather legal rights and wrongs. Did she understand what society’s reaction to murder would be? That’s the key question I haven’t seen satisfying answered either way.
A jury decided that she met this definition of insanity.
It’s God. The “gun” is implied by the nature of the concept of a supreme diety. There’s also this quote, from the OP’s link:
“‘I was telling him no, and each time it was getting worse and worse, the way that it would have to be done,’ Laney said.”
Which implies to me that she thought beating her children to death with a rock was preventing them from some much worse death (still apparently at her hands) later on.
The impression I got (and it is just an impression, I don’t have any more information than you do) was that God was going to intervene in some way, so that her illegal actions would be prevented or reversed. Again from the link,
“‘This is a test,’ she told him. ‘I thought this was a test.’”
Just to be clear, I’m not convinced by what I’ve seen of her testimony that she was crazy enough to be kept out of prison, but it is enough to convince me that the death penalty shouldn’t be applied, which was the OP’s original rant. Of course, I pretty much always think the death penalty shouldn’t be applied, so that’s not much of a trick. Still, it seems the DA would have agreed with me, since he didn’t try to seek the death penalty in the first place.
You’re real squishy on definitions.
You said that we (or the insanity defense) “excuses” her for killing her sons. Bullshit. Now you’re saying it’s “defending” her. Well, she’s gonna be defended in the legal sense, because she has to be under our legal system. But no one is “defending” her in the sense of trying to argue that this wasn’t actually wrong.
What happened was incomprehendible. Some people find it more comprehendible to ponder how mentally ill she might have been. That doesn’t mean they don’t get it. This is not a contest where anyone gets bonus points for being the most outraged . Yeah, you’re horrified. That’s very noble. Guess what? Other people are too. Even GASP people who don’t have children!
Some of us find it so incomprehensible we forget the correct form of words, even.
Well, she’s been acquitted of her crime now. Where is there any protection of the children in these cases? It’s not the first time we’ve heard of a religious, quiet white mother brutally killing her own children.
I disagree with the verdict. I don’t dispute the fact that one can all of a sudden seek into a deep depression, but she took the lives of two small children. And, for that - we’ll be paying for her meals for as long as she lives. Did she have a history of depression? Should her husband or other family members have seen this coming? Who knows. All I know is - two boys are dead for no damn reason.
She is going to suffer for the rest of her life, knowing what she did.
(If and when she realizes it)
I have have very little respect for juries to be either qualified or emotionally capable of deciding such things. I’ve seen egregious errors in both directions.
And just what is your preferred solution to that situation?