Originally posted by Robtard
We've been over this. I'm not denying that PD exist, I'm questioning whether is causes a mother to strangle her baby or if it's just being used as an excuse to blame-shift instead of just saying "ok, this woman is a murderer".
how are those mutually exclusive choices?
she is a murderer who was likely driven to it because of mental health issues...
Originally posted by inimalist
how are those mutually exclusive choices?she is a murderer who was likely driven to it because of mental health issues...
Because it seems the options were to either find her guilty of murder or infanticide (which isn't murder in Canada).
Curious if all mother's who kill their babies suffer from mental health issues and then can thereby be excused of murder. Seems the argument is "she had to be crazy to do that."
Originally posted by Robtard
Because it seems the options were to either find her guilty of murder or infanticide (which isn't murder in Canada).Curious if all mother's who kill their babies suffer from mental health issues and then can thereby be excused of murder. Seems the argument is "she had to be crazy to do that."
I'd assume some form of pre-meditation would be a big part of it. Her charges were dropped from murder 1 to infanticide as the trials progressed, I'd imagine the evidence wasn't strong enough to get a conviction for murder 1 (ie: she would have gotten off completely) and/or psychological evaluation suggested this were the case (though, I can't imagine a prosecutor dropping the murder charge if it was there to make).
Historically, women murdering their children have been isolated events (though there should be serious restrictions on her having more children) and those who commit them don't normally pose a great risk to society. This is true of some people who commit murder as an act of passion or of sort of temporary psychosis (though, we don't have that as a legal defence, only "unfit to stand trial", but the mental health criminal system is almost a worse sentence in many ways).
here is a link to our criminal code:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infanticide-Criminal_Code_Canada_Offence.aspx
infanticide IS murder, murder 4. The judge COULD have given her 5 years, and being in an unstable mental state is actually a prerequisite.
so, basically, if the courts thought she had wilfully committed the murder in a planned way, it would have been murder 1, if it was accidental but she was mentally fit to stand trial, murder 3 [iirc, this is our manslaughter law]. She couldn't have been tried for infanticide if she was in a stable psychological condition, and if the judge thought she was a risk, he could have put her away for 5 years.
like I said, go Canada
[to sort of hit the "faking it" argument before anyone makes it, she would have had 6 years of psychological screening, and real life is not like Primal Fear, people generally have no idea how to fake mental illness, and psychologists are trained specifically how to detect it]
Originally posted by Robtard
So is imprisoning people and telling them what they can and can not do, that's just as fascist. Again, counseling can/does fail. Think about this poor woman suffering another like event, you monster.
No, it's not. Not even close. A prison system built around rehabilitation and re-integration is about as good as it can get (see Norway's system) and in many ways, would greatly improve the lives of the criminals. Having your uterus forcibly removed (via surgery) does not come close to being forced to reintegrate back into society.
Originally posted by Robtard
Only if we allow the new mothers to kill twins, triples etc. Otherwise, one free kill only.
I like the "press a button that kills a bunch of people at once" approach, counting as just one "kill" attempt in court. 😄
Originally posted by inimalist
how does that benefit society in a way that justifies violating her rights?
Criminals lose rights all the time, I think this also applies to the Canadian legal system as well. eg Drug Offender on probation, police officer can search their home at any time and for any reason.
How does it benefit society? Easy, she'll never be able to commit the same crime again, considering she's now known to lose her sanity after giving birth.
Originally posted by Robtard
Criminals lose rights all the time, I think this also applies to the Canadian legal system as well. eg Drug Offender on probation, police officer can search their home at any time and for any reason.How does it benefit society? Easy, she'll never be able to commit the same crime again, considering she's now known to lose her sanity after giving birth.
no, totally, but the loss of rights has to be justified
I suppose you are right, that seems like the nuclear option though, when professional counselling is probably best. At the very least, if she gets pregnant again there will be eyes on her [I guess there is always the situation where she just goes MIA and has another child without going to the hospital... ever... but that is somewhat extreme, no?]
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it's not. Not even close. A prison system built around rehabilitation and re-integration is about as good as it can get (see Norway's system) and in many ways, would greatly improve the lives of the criminals. Having your uterus forcibly removed (via surgery) does not come close to being forced to reintegrate back into society.I like the "press a button that kills a bunch of people at once" approach, counting as just one "kill" attempt in court. 😄
Considering she's only murderously-crazy after giving birth and having her serve 16 days in prison (for the crime of improperly disposing of a body) is "just cruel", what will rehabilitation do for her now?
Hysterectomy seems like the most sensible approach for a person like this, nip any potential future problems in the bud. She'll never have to go through this horrible ordeal again, that poor woman. If you removed yourself emotionally from the thread (ie that poor woman) you'd see I'm making perfectly logical sense.
No, that's stupid. Should be just one free kill.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, totally, but the loss of rights has to be justifiedI suppose you are right, that seems like the nuclear option though, when professional counselling is probably best. At the very least, if she gets pregnant again there will be eyes on her [I guess there is always the situation where she just goes MIA and has another child without going to the hospital... ever... but that is somewhat extreme, no?]
She's a convicted infanticider(yes, my word), seems justified.
She's done it once already, so there's precedent right there. Are you willing to risk another strangled baby and another of your Canadian neighbors waking up with a dead baby on their lawn?
Originally posted by inimalist
i don't believe in forced sterilization for the mentally disabled, so thats sort of a Sophie's choice to me, and I'd side against the state having that power on principle.
So what would you do with a retard who put her baby in the oven(true story) cos it cried to much and she became pregnant again?
Originally posted by inimalist
take the child into the custody of the stateforce her to stay in hospital until she has the child
Forcing her to stay somewhere against her will and taking her child away after birth is somehow not state fascism akin to a forced hysterectomy?
Of the two, the hysterectomy seems the more humane.
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering she's only murderously-crazy after giving birth and having her serve 16 days in prison (for the crime of improperly disposing of a body) is "just cruel", what will rehabilitation do for her now?
No, what's cruel is the situation itself. Shit happens. Life is full of shitty situations.
Originally posted by Robtard
Hysterectomy seems like the most sensible approach for a person like this, nip any potential future problems in the bud. She'll never have to go through this horrible ordeal again, that poor woman. If you removed yourself emotionally from the thread (ie that poor woman) you'd see I'm making perfectly logical sense.
I think counseling with a close eye on her next pregnancy would be best. After her stint in the legal system, she will probably need counseling regardless of what she did.
And I'm not "emotionally" invested in the thread, at all. As a father and a Mormon, I would obviously choose the baby as superlative. I don't. I chose neither. I also see the criminal justice system in the US as grossly flawed. Canada's is better, sure, but I still think there are better systems than Canada's. So I see the best results as those results the maximize personal freedoms which includes future children from the mother. That means a society free from harm. That infant would be an example of a member of that society.
What does imprisoning her do at all? What does it do for society? You must also consider her part of society: she is also an agent.
So what does incarcerating her with hardened criminals actually do for society? I see it doing nothing since she will be a burden on the taxes used to put her in prison. She may also pick up bad habits/ideas being with criminals. She has no prior history.
So what does putting her in prison do for society? Is there a net positive gain from putting her there? No. In fact, it looks like society can more greatly benefit from her being free and being a working citizen. Caution should be taken with her having anymore children, obviously. But she does society more good out of prison.
This type of "best possible outcome" thinking is what we need more of. This is called Utilitarianism.
Originally posted by Robtard
No, that's stupid. Should be just one free kill.
One act. Multiple deaths occur all the time. So it should be one free killing act. 😄
Originally posted by Robtard
Probably.IMO, taking a mother's child away is worse than taking away her ability to have one in the first place.
I think the state being allowed to force surgery on someone, especially in a context that is undeniably slanted against the mentally handicapped, isnt a justifiable use of its power. I'm surprised your arguing that the state should have that right just so it isn't mean?
Originally posted by inimalist
I think the state being allowed to force surgery on someone, especially in a context that is undeniably slanted against the mentally handicapped, isnt a justifiable use of its power. I'm surprised your arguing that the state should have that right just so it isn't mean?
But the state forcing someone to stay somewhere while they're pregnant and taking a child away is a justifiable use of power?
I'm not arguing that the state should have the right to do it on anyone and for any reason, I'm arguing of specifics, such as the crazy-after-birth-infant-stranglers and retards who put their babies in the oven cos they cried types.
My course of action not only seems less mean/cruel, it's also proactive, like Batman.
Originally posted by Robtard
But the state forcing someone to stay somewhere while they're pregnant and taking a child away is a justifiable use of power?I'm not arguing that the state should have the right to do it on anyone and for any reason, I'm arguing of specifics, such as the crazy-after-birth-infant-stranglers and retards who put their babies in the oven cos they cried types.
My course of action not only seems less mean/cruel, it's also proactive, like Batman.
this crazy baby in the oven lady, was she getting counselling when she got pregnant again? where did it happen?
ah ya, I'm not saying she is put in a prison facility or anything, but being held in a hospital for 9 months is not nearly as invasive or destructive to an individual, and has way less possibility for abuse, than does government mandated sterilization. Taking the child might be cruel, but that cruelness doesn't justify removing the right to not having the government **** with her person like that.
I'd certainly be in favour of her getting counselling that, in no uncertain terms, encouraged her to not have another baby, but I just don't believe the state has the right to order medical procedures on people.