Can U believe this: Texas Woman cuts off her babies arms

Evidence of her mental state will be looked at. This evidence will be held to a high standard, I expect, by jury and judge, as it should be. Perhaps too high- it's hard for me to accept that Yates was sane, but she was found guilty, so...
__Bardock, you haven't thought much about insanity...I suppose there's no hurry, but do keep an open mind...don't hold such hard convictions before you're informed.
__Fiery Eyes is correct. Insane people don't choose what they believe- it evolves, displacing their previous understanding of the world (which presumably was much like yours and mine). There are inheritable conditions associated with psychotic states, like schizophrenia. Shizophrenics are rarely violent, but not because a choice was made to have delusions of a less desperate nature.

Yes it will be looked at, actually she was investigated for 9 months and found to be ok. My point being, not all observations, testings, ect can be the truth, if a person wanted to fake it, in order to get out of the death penatly, it is possible. Peoplle do this all the time in order to dodge the penalty of the crime they did. Thats why the insanity plea is failing so much, because it has been abused often.

They try it, but I doubt they suceed...and of course they try it, criminal defendants say the d@mndest things. Heheheh. Especially in vehicular incidents.
__My car's cruise control took over and made me uncontrollably accelerate, causing that fatal crash!
__I never saw that homeless man I hit!
__It wasn't me driving, it was some guy I met in the bar- he must have run off before witnesses arrived, leaving me unconscious by the vehicle!
__There's definitely more discomfort with, and suspicion aimed at the insanity defense. I think it's primarily because it's assumed that insane people must be visibly, obviously insane- so unlike "us" that you could tell them at a glance. We always find it unacceptable that a quiet person, in a conventional role such as mother, could develop an extreme form of mental illness...
__I'd be interested in knowing of any cases where the insanity defense, especially in America, seems to have been too readily accepted by a judge or jury.
__Also, she was "investigated" for nine months? Who investigated...what did they investigate? Her mental health, or her fitness as a mother? Was the investigator a trained psychiatrist, and were they having regular sessions interviewing her? Was she cooperating in talk therapy? It often takes these things to uncover mental illness. Everyone, including the sufferer, fears mental illness so much! Everyone thinks that if they just try harder to think the right kind of thoughts, they can think themselves out of their emotional trouble- not so, when it can be biologically derived or sustained.
__If this was simply child services, monitoring the home environment, why would she reveal any emotional problems she was having? Why would anyone reveal anything of that nature to a stranger, a non-professional, whose job was not even to gather such information, who could not help?

I really don't appreciate that you say I couldn't know anything aboot Insanity just because I have a different opinion. But anyway of course I know that insane people are not really able to change what they are doing, but I think you should judge people by what they caused not why they did it. Maybe sometimes you have to consider it but I don't see why insane people should be treated better than "sane"people. If someone would cut your arm of would yxou say oh well I hope we can help hiom since he is insane, I don't think so, I know I would want him to be punished, hardl.

__Punished for NOT making a choice to harm you- not perceiving/understanding your humanity or the situation?
__How about treating him and then judging him by the choices he makes, not the crazy acts his illness compels him to commit?
__How can you not see the difference between someone who wants/chooses to harm others, and someone ill through no fault of their own? What do you expect the punishment to accomplish? Your satisfaction? Are you some kind of sadist? Well, you're giving sadism a bad name. Cease and desist in the name of all that is perverted!
__Heheheh- you're a silly boy. Yes, if somebodycut off my arm, Id say, I hope to hell his condition can improve. I'd also work to make certain that the conditions of his eventual release from treatment were quite stringent. Violence should NOT be taken lightly; that's NOT what I'm promoting.
__You're young. Bad things, very bad things, I've seen and experienced, committed against the vulnerable by the sane. I've seen perfectly predatory people at work/play...and they're sane. I've seen friends suffer mental illness, and there's SUCH a huge f~cking difference in culpability...I won't dismiss that. To dismiss that is to discount the importance of moral values, if you judge by act alone.
__As far as the mentally ill...usually, it's the mentally ill who are harmed, rather than harming others.
__And what you don't get is they're frequently good people.

Of course I see what you are saying and I am not a sadist (well maybe a little) but its not aboot that, if mentally ill are harmed the people tzhat harmed them deserve a punishment, but isn't such a punishment invented for three different reasons?
-to give the person that was harmed revenge (least important)
-to reintroduce the person that did the deed to society
-to preventt things like that to happen again

so if there is no possibility to reintroduce the person to society what good does it do?
and in that I think the same rules should be applied to everyperson.

I don't think punishment is appropriate when the deed is a result of the dysfunction of the mind, rather than a rational choice.

Treatment might-
-Give satisfaction to the injured party, that the person who inflicted it can now understand what they did and that it was wrong, and can be remorseful
-Can obviously re-introduce the person to society
_Prevent such things from happening again

HOW would punishment, such as incarceration, accomplish those things?
__Have you thought this out? It seems like you want a positive outcome, but haven't considered the best way to bring it about.

Punishment, I have NO problem with when the crime is understood as such by the criminal, and is undertaken by choice.
__We have more common ground than you think, but I feel you need to do more research, on the severely mentally ill and the professionals who treat them.

I never said that insane people should be put into prison, if there is a good chance of recovery they should get treatment if not they should get the death penalty (if the deed was serious enough) .
I don'T see why someone that kiolled someone and knew it should get the death penalty while someone that was insane but with the same conditions get a treatment, that just ain't fair.

Because punishment should be related to making bad choices, as a correction or deterrant for them...mentally ill people could make the best, most moral choices they can, in accordance with what they know, and still be commiting a horrible act in our eyes.
__For example, this was Yate's defense: Yates was in a psychotic state that involved "knowing" that her children were being corrupted by the world and would soon lose their souls to Satan- so she decided to send them to Heaven...it's ****ed up, but let's say that's REALLY what the woman thought she was doing! So what's the appropriate punishment for saving your child from burning and torture for all eternity? I mean, it's a fairly defendable choice.
__Someone else who kills their child simply because they want more time to party- shouldn't they get a harsher response? They're not going to improve- they're showing their true self.
__Yates was showing her sickness, if you believe the evidence. The jury didn't, but she continues to manifest severe mental illness to this day, in prison... I can't say- I'm no expert, nor do I know ALL that the jury knows. It's my impression, however, that she truly was psychotic. I think the system often fails to identify the insane. I doubt it more than one in a hundred-thousand times finds a sane person to be insane, however. I'd like it to be cautious, and conservative, but right now it seems downright impossible to be insane in America...according to the criminal justice system.
__So who really believes we're all rational in this country?

Haha the Yates case is aexactly the wrong example. As for someone beliving that by killing their children they can go to heaven that is ewxactly what you should do to her. And I don'T think it should be related to bad choices, the actuall act and the result should be considered not what kind of choice it was.

Yates was insane, but I'M not. You're not either, so why behave in accordance with her pychotic beliefs?
__So, our minds don't matter? We're machines, some of us functioning for good outcomes, others not. Destroy the machines whose function leads to undesirable outcomes.
__OK, that's the level on which you're comfortable. I'm different. I think our inner nature is a profound attribute and should be taken into account by our criminal justice system. I believe guilt is more than mere causation- such as a child leaving out a toy someone trips on, and the accident is fatal. Kill the child? Oh, kiddo, you know you wouldn't...now, come on- why not consider intent in cases involving A: adults, and B: direct causation as well as indirect?
__Heheheh, you're arguing just for fun...but that's cool- others may be reading and considering my points, and thinking these things out. Mostly I want people to THINK ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. I don't even care so much about this, or any particular case, I just want people to consider how we do- and how we COULD- handle mental illness when it factors into criminal cases.

I indeed like tzo argue but I only do if I have ideas I want to protect.
And I said the act should be considered a kid leaving a toy out is something else then someone stabbing someone. I hope people wiill read it and make up their minds I think it is important that people think, I don'T really care to much if they belive I am right or you, since it wouldn'T change to much in the legal system anyway. I think Insane people are often much better humans than sane ones but the ones that are not shouldn'T be treated anything better than comparable sane people.

How is a person "good?" I think a person is good by making moral choices- by TRYING to make the best possible choice leading to the best possible outcome. The difficulty with someone who slips into a psychotic state, is they don't lose their morals when they lose their mind. They continue doing what they believe is best- a delusion might involve a wicked and powerful person/creature who is bent on hurting them... so they try to fight this scary entity. In reality, they're attacking an innocent person.
__They are doing a righteous act, defending themselves. However, the act is criminal by legal statutes...isn't that WHY we have "innocent by reason of insanity?" It recognizes that these people don't know right from wrong, or can't understand the situation when they go to trial.

I know that. But if someone attacks an innocent person it doesn'T matter if he knew it especially since it can happen easily again with a insane person. And a person is can only behave good to the moral beliefs in a society, as thathe can also be punished by that society.

I think this topic has been discussed enough