Apparently, she heard the voice of God tell her that the world was going to end and for her to kill her children before the end came. Her court-appointed lawyer is attempting to use her religion as part of an insanity defense, saying:
The woman is clearly insane, so what does it matter what she claims inspired her act? It could have been a dog giving her orders, a lion figurine from Niagara Falls, or space aliens talking to her through the radio. Using religion to semi-excuse her acts (“Well, yes, she’s nuts, but hey she thought it was God telling her to do this, and you can’t disobey Him, can you?”) is utterly disgusting. Would the lawyer think Ms. Laney’s dilemma as terrible if Katey Couric on her TV had told her to kill her kids? Put the woman away in the state hospital, but don’t legitimize her misdeeds in the mantle of faith.
Too bad there wasn’t a ram caught in a thicket by its horns nearby–this story might have had a happier ending.
I hav yet to meet a fit mother who *wouldn’t * walk throught the Gates of Hell to protect her children. Any woman who would not turn her back on God when given that choice deserves to go to jail.
That’s what I hate about God. You never know when he’s serious or just foolin.’ Take that business about Abraham:“Hey, go kill yer kid for me.” and then, immediately after Abe, acting on God’s instructions, absoloutely demolishes any trust his boy had in him, God sends an angel to call off the sacrifice. Doesn’t even show up in person to, you know, maybe take some of the heat off dad.
Yeah, looks like he really slipped up this time. And what about this idiot servenat of his in the article? Did she even ask for clarification given that “Thou Shalt not…” arrangement The Big Guy made with Moses?
If she truly believes “the word of God [is] infallible,” it will be interesting to hear her testimony: will she, herself, say she was/is nutz? Or will she stick by her actions. I hope God really did tell her to do this, cuz if he didn’t then I’ll convert and start believing in hell just so I can believe SHE goes there.
I don’t see where anyone is legitimizing her actions. The lawyer is merely trying to establish that this particular insanity did in fact drive to her to kill her children.
I agree with you, Gobear, that using religion to semi-excuse her acts is utterly disgusting. But so is taunting God for her actions. Like you said yourself, what she did has the same moral significance no matter who or what told her to do it. God, the devil, or Son of Sam’s dog. Your OP is about her, but your title is about God. He forgot to send no angels. The children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh.
Well that’s true, but that’s not the same thing as legitimizing. This woman’s insanity was in hallucinating that God was talking to her, but having hallucinating something, it is in fact more compelling to be told by God to kill your children than to be told by Katie Couric to kill your children. You apparently don’t believe in God, but should God, to your surprise, suddenly appear and personally order you to do something that you found odious, you might feel compelled to obey anyway. OTOH if Katie Couric appeared to you and ordered you to do it, you might just laugh her off.
Of course, one might say that once we are dealing with an insane person, any assumption about what is or is not compelling to a normal person might not hold - an insane person might find Katie Couric completely compelling. This is true, but to the extent that the lawyer can present his client’s case in terms that an ordinary person can relate to it helps his case, and that is all he is trying to do.
In sum, it does not at all impact the case from the standpoint of right/wrong, but it does help the case in terms of the believability of the insanity defense.
The question is whether she was legally insane, which means, more or less, that you were so far gone that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong.
You often see people who are obviously howl-at-the-moon insane commit criminal acts and then try to cover it up. These people are not legally insane because they are aware that what they did was somehow wrong. Contrast that to someone who strangles his wife thinking her neck is a grapefruit and then is found by the police camly finishing his breakfast.
My understanding is that people suffering from schizophrenia often hear voices. But they are often able to recognize that these voices are delusions. They know that chairs don’t talk and that they should ignore it. So it would be relevant who she thought the voices were coming from, for two reasons. First, you might more readily believe the voice is “real.” Second, whoever it is may have the “authority” to tell you what to do, i.e. you wouldn’t necessarily believe what the voice told you to do was wrong. Katey Couric telling you to do something you know is wrong is one thing. “God” telling you to do something is another because if “God” convinces you to do something, you don’t recognize that it’s wrong.
Think of it this way. Suppose you’re raising an insanity defense to kidnapping Katey Couric’s kids and your delusion is that you saw Katey on TV and she told you to pick up her kids from school. Obviously, that’s a better defense than if your barca-lounger told you to pick up Katey’s kids from school.
I agree with you. However I have to point out lots of people presumably don’t - specifically everyone who likes the Abraham/Isaac story.
However, to possibly help explain the other side, if you truly trust God you would presumably think that obeying him WAS the best thing for your children. As an analogy, if my father said “do xxx to your son” I would probably think he’s insane. But I could think there was some danger here which could only be avoided by the apparently extreme act. If I didn’t have a chance to question him I’d have to decide.
Wel, there is no God, so I’m not especially worried about that.
Gotta agree with you there because there are no angels, either.
AAAAAAHHH!!! Run! ZOMBIES!
Not always so. Sometimes schizophrenics recognize that the voices are not real, but often their disease doesn’t let them differentiate between the real and the imagined. ANY source would be viewed as legitimate, Kotey Kouric of God. My beef ios that the defense attorney is taking the God thing seriously when it should just be counted as a delusion.
C’mon, [bLib**, but your response was just relgious twaddle and not a serious reply to the thread.
My point is not whether God exists or not (although he doesn’t), but that religion should not be used to excuse infanticide. The woman is obviously schizophrenic, so her belief that God ordered her to kill the childen should not be taken as a serious defense.
Man, that lawyer’s inspired. Going for the touchdown, there. That’s just brilliant.
Why doesn’t god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, “God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone.”
How could a mother do that to her own children?