Yeah, we have manslaughter in the US as well.
I doubt Stoid is going to answer. She has a habit of dropping out completely when she’s losing, and then e-mails her detractors to point out their faults and why she’s right.
Well to be fair to Stoid, she was emphasising the lack of ‘intention’ to commit this evil act.
Incidentally I’m always satisfied that lawyers are prepared to defend people, no matter how evil. That’s a fundamental pillar of civilised society.
However, since this is the Pit:
I’m against the death penalty, but my gut instinct is to suffocate the ‘therapists’. To discourage the others…
I found this page with summaries of stories carried in the Denver press. Some of the links have expired, but the full articles can be found in the archives.
Just two quotes from the summaries on this page :
Details of the incident are given on the site.
The more I read about this case, the more I wonder about this mother.
Something I noticed in one of the many linked articles in this thread (I think it was in the one “written to be a tear-jerker”) - the mother and Candice had a successful “rebirthing” session the day before the fatal one!
Seems in the previous trial, only one person was on top of the child (no pillows if I recall correctly) and the blanket was open at the end Candice’s head was at. She emerged after a few minutes and, according to the story, sat on her adoption mother’s lap and bonded nicely, much to Mom’s pleasure.
Which leads me to two questions…
1). Why was a second session neccessary if the first one went so well?
2). Having seen how one (brief) rebirthing session went, wouldn’t the obvious differences in the second session (four people on top instead of one, blanket closed at both ends, the very length of time it took) made the mother, especially concidering she’s a nurse, stop and think “Hang on a second…”
I’m a firm believer that if you see something that isn’t right, check it out. ESPECIALLY if someone could end up hurt by what you’re witnessing and you have some personal connection/responsibility to that someone. I still haven’t forgiven the next door neighbor who sat and watched through his kitchen window one morning (while eating his ceral) as a streanger got into our car, messed with the steering column for a full three minutes using a screwdriver, and drove off. The neighbor thought this looked a little odd, so AFTER the car was gone he mentioned it to his roommate.
I guess Asshole couldn’t be bothered to put don’t his fucking corn flakes long enough to call 911 an report a grand theft auto in progress. I still hope that one day HIS car is stolen and latter finds out FIVE people sat around and picked their noses while they watched.
Dumb People Suck,
Patty
Stoid, how does your philosophy apply to other cases? Take, for example, drunken driving. Drunken drivers regularly kill people every day. I think it’s fair to say that (for the most part) they didn’t intend to. And I’m sure most drunken drivers who kill are horrified by the deaths they cause. Would you argue that we shouldn’t punish them either?
As another case, Tim McVeigh (sp?) thought his motives were good while he slaughtered scores of people. Do we just say “Poor Tim, you made an error!” and let him go?
For the record, I’m with those who think that motives matter very little indeed. If someone tries to maim or kill me, they are in for a world of hurt if I can manage it. And I certainly would not be mollified the presence of any good motives in my assailant. And on the other hand, I would be very happy indeed if someone gave me a million dollars, even if they thought the money would send me to hell or something.