heh
Really? Is Blonde in the room right now? Take a good look at her, and imagine that she’s become terribly ill, mentally, and done something horrible to your kids. Look her right in the face, and tell me exactly how you’d murder your wife of eleven years. How would you do it? Strangle her? Use a gun? Use a rock? Look at her hair. Think of the first time you touched it. Now imagine it clotted with blood and brains, because you put a bullet in her head because she couldn’t tell what was real and what was a product of her sickness. Think about her voice when she agreed to marry you, and then imagine wrapping your hands around her throat and squeezing, forcing her down as she struggles against you, until she stops breathing. Think about the first time you saw her face, and tell me how you’d smash it in with a rock to punish her for being crazy, breaking out her teeth, shattering her jaw and cheekbones until her whole face is a bloody ruin. Can you do that? Can you look at her right now and describe how you’d slaughter your wife when she’s in the most confused and vulnerable and terrified state of her entire life? Are you really that callous?
Interesting that you thought I would murder her. 
I work with the mentally ill have have for 15 years. I understand what it means to be insane, schizophrenic, psychotic. . . Killing a sick person would not bring my children back, so yeah, I quess I would be willing to “let her slide” if she were found to be mentally ill.
As I said earlier, Blonde is either lying through her teeth about her psych minor or she didn’t have the intelligence to comprehend her classes. It is so blatantly obvious that does not understand the illness so either one wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Well isn’t that just fucking special.
so, what did you mean?? That you’d have helped her avoid trial by leaving the jurisdiction? hidden her in the basement without access to the outside world, including internet? (say!..)
Oh please, way to backpeddle.
The night grows long,
And I’ll bid you all goodnight.
Attention Mr. & Mrs. Dumbfuck:
When not a single poster in a 3 page thread has agreed with you, that’s typically a very strong indication that you should reconsider your position. In an online community as large as this, and a thread as long as this one, not having a single poster on your side is a very difficult feat. Unless you’re trying. Which I’m beginning to think may be the case.
Let’s recap, shall we?
We’ve got a self-proclaimed psych minor (that would be Tweedledee) who believes legal insanity should be a valid legal defense, just not in the cases she happens to feel passionate about.
Outstanding logic.
So then our self-proclaimed psych minor (yeah, right) proceeds to completely ignore 3 pages of rational arguments about why the insanity defense is textbook in this particular case (you know what textbook means, right? It’s that big heavy thing you apparently got your psych minor by studying) and proceed to stand in a corner with her fingers in her ears yelling “la la la, I can’t hear you!”.
Now, in Dumbfuck Land, ignoring all arguments contrary to your own is enough to win an argument. But Tweedledee wants to be sure she’s got this one. So not only does she ignore all rational arguments, she decides to go one step further and chooses to repeat false accusations (anyone having any sympathy for the mother is incapable of having any sympathy for the children) after they have been proven false by those she’s accusing.
At this point, we’ve probably lost our winning couple. I mean, this is a lot of text for them to comprehend all at once. So I’ll give an example, because I’ve grown a bit of a soft spot in my heart for The Dumbfucks.
This is pretty much like my standing in front of blonde (isn’t she?) and saying “wow, that’s some brown hair you got there.” Blonde responding “my hair isn’t brown it’s blonde” and my witty retort of “wow, that’s some brown hair you got there.” That’s pretty much what you’re doing when you claim everyone here has no sympathy for the children after they’ve told you umpteen times how false that statement is.
Now, most people would consider me pretty much the village idiot after that spectacular performance in debate. (Pssst! Blonde! That’s why everyone here is proclaiming you the village idiot!)
Saying something over and over again don’t make it true, Cowgirl.
At this point, some posters here still have some glimmer of hope for our dull, dull star. They decide to ask some questions, hoping to get past the tired mantra our girl keeps spouting in lieu of an actual argument. Questions straightforward enough that even the village idiot can recognize and answer. So what does she do? Ignore it, of course!
After all, that’s what all the truly great debators do.
Now, if her mad debating skillz and supreme intellect aren’t enough to beat everyone here into submission, in comes Tweedledumb!
If at all possible, Tweedledumb actually makes Tweedledee seem bright in comparison. While Tweedledee’s debating method consists of ignoring questions directed at her and refusing to acknowledge even the simpliest of logic, Tweedledumb’s debating method consists of answering questions directed at him by pointing out spelling errors in the question!
Fucking Brilliant!
And if that’s not enough to shut those whiny northerners up, surely poking fun at their sex life, which has fuck all to do with the debate at hand, ought to have ‘em headin’ to the hills!
I, and I’m fairly confident I can speak for the majority of the posters in this thread, am cowering in the shadow of your divine wit and intellect.
So finally Tweedledee is going to get some support for her position! It’s about damn time, we’re already on the third page! So what earth-shaking logic is Tweedledumb going to throw down to have us all simultanously nod our heads and murmur “oh, I see it now!”?
Why, it’s that she’s “intelligent (that’s highly debatable), sexy and beautiful”.
Well, shit, man. Why didn’t you say so on page 1? That could’ve saved us 3 pages of head bashing against the nearest wall. I mean, damn. If someone is good lookin’, then they must be right, no matter how illogical their argument is, or how poorly they debate it.
Right?
Oh, wait. That just works in Dumbfuck Land.
Good thing that’s where y’all live.
:rolleyes:
What’s slightly nuts for me is that mentally retarded people are now (since July 2002) protected by the US Constitution (in so much as you can’t kill ‘em), but Blonde thinks people who are even more nuts (e.g. clinically determined to be insane) should be killed.
Regardless of what she or a prosecution thinks, that’s not going to fly when put to many Juries – which, seems to me, explains why the prosecution in this case didn’t push for it.
It sometimes takes a while for the law to catch up, but it would seem to make sense (given the Supremes ruling on retarded people) that people determined to be insane will, eventually, be afforded equal protection by the US Constitution. In the mean time, prosecutions asking for death (in cases where Insanity is proven) are likely to be kicked upstairs to the Appellate Court, imho.
Ya know, Blaster, I was kidding around a bit before, but your defense of your wife is pretty baseless aside from the fact that you are married to her, and I (or we, those of us with more than two brain cells ) grow weary of this.
How about actually talking about the OP/subject?
Can you answer this (without posing another question as your answer)?
Blonde, I’d also like to ask what the difference would be between rehabilitating any sort of murderer, i.e., Leopold & Loeb, and rehabilitating someone who murdered their children during a psychotic episode. If the psychosis can be brought under control, why wouldn’t the murderer stand as good a chance as Leopold & Loeb, who went on to be upstanding citizens after committing a murder just for the hell of it? Are the acts so different that you can’t draw any parallels? Do you think a “thrill kill” is somehow *not as bad * as killing your own children?
And if you put someone to death for killing someone, where does that leave YOU in the big scheme of things?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/10/national/main193922.shtml
http://www.karisable.com/drexler.htm
I just skipped through my copy of Bad Girls Do It: An Encylopedia of Female Murderers, a lurid true crime collection by Michael Newton. I looked for cases similar to the Laney case: a mother kills all of her children at once, no history of abuse or neglect. When I threw out cases in which the mother tried to cover her tracks, such as that of Susan Smith, there were 26.
In 10 of these cases, the mother committed suicide (another 8 attempted suicide but survived). Of the remaining 16 cases, the book had no information on the fate of one of these women. 6 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms; 9 were put in mental institutions.
3 are reported to have died in asylums; 1 in prison. 3 were released from asylums; 2 from prison. The book does not tell whether the remaining 6 were paroled, released, or died in custody.
In 1956, Lorene Calbeck killed her three small daughters at gunpoint, wrapped the bodies, left a note for her husband with instructions for care of her flowerbeds, asked her family doctor to stop by in half an hour, and shot herself. She lived, and her husband stayed with her. In 1989, after his death, Lorene killed herself–not too uncommon among elderly widows. In the decades after her horrible act, she could have been somebody’s nice lady next door. There is no report to the contrary.
Does anyone know what happened to Fumiko Kimura? An immigrant, lonely and isolated, Kimura drowned her two small children (and attempted to drown herself) in 1985, after she discoved that her husband was having an affair. She was released, reconciled with her husband, and the two were hoping to have more children.
Being overwhelmed by anger, hatred or jealousy has nothing to do with insanity. Anger or jealousy are emotions we can comprehend, even if our personnality is such that we don’t often feel them.
On the other hand, to take a recent example :
You’re trying to hold a converation with someone. At some point it becomes obvious that this person is pissed at you. After some time, you eventually understand why : you pronounced the word “cat”, which is an evidence that not only you’re part of a plot organized by the trucksters against this person but also that you’re overtly and deliberatly threatening him by using it (in case you wouldn’t understand the relation between the word cat and the truckster’s plot, it’s because in an old song, a man who can’t marry the woman he’s in love with is told he doesn’t like cats. That’s the explanation. Still don’t get it? Songs are actually broadcasted on TV in order to convey messages to this person. Still unclear? Give up).
At this point, are you able to tell whether or not there’s some line between “sane” and “insane” which has been crossed or is it still unclear in your opinion? Now, keep in mind that this person wouldn’t necessarily have been considered as legally insane had he killed me to protect his life when I used the word “cat”. Most probably not, actually. The standards are higher than that. So can you imagine what kind of mental state someone who is legally insane must be in? Do you actually believe that for such a person , finding out on what side of the line between “sane” and “insane” she falls is impossible to tell, and that there’s not much difference with being, for instance, jealous?
The interrogation of the mother was even more painful to watch because it was easy to see that there was no hostility or maliciousness in her. She was not a cold person. She spoke softly of what she had done to her boys. It wasn’t that she didn’t love them. She thought that she was doing the will of God.
No arrogance. No anger. No putting anyone else down. No arguing. No contempt. No mean-spiritedness. No name-calling. Just overwhelming bewilderment followed by great anguish that I cannot phathom.