Andrea Yates Appeal Upheld

[AllEars']

I agree here with you completely. I think paedophiles and rapists should be jailed permanently, for example, despite the fact that their mind is probably disturbed.

So, to your line of thinking someone capable of murdering her 5 children is safer than someone who would "screw" the kids?

I already stated I don't know enough about this case, however people are acting as if this woman is being turned out onto the streets when she is not. Also, this is about a conviction being quashed because there is some dispute over the prosecution witness testimony.

Where did anyone say she was being turned out/set free yet? With a new trial it is always possible. Since she has already admitted her guilt and her culpability I don't want her set free. I want her to feel the hell that she inflicted on her helpless children. I think someone she trusts should hold her head under water untill she drowns.

Then this line of reasoning got mixed up somewhere along the line with me disagreeing the theory that we should be able to kill people for their own good

We are not killing them for their own good its for society's good. Some people just forfeit the right to breathe.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

So, to your line of thinking someone capable of murdering her 5 children is safer than someone who would "screw" the kids?

On an individual basis it is hard to say. But on a societal basis, paedophiles are more dangerous to children. Psychotic mothers murdering their own children is tragic and horrible but in real terms it doesn't happen particularly often (gets a lot of attention when it does). Nor do psychotic mothers tend to band into secret networks or insert themselves into roles of trust so they can systematically kill children. If they do, they make the jump from being psychotic to being plain evil.

Usually psychotic mothers kill their kids and are then speedily convicted of it without offering much of a defence, such as this case where the mother phoned the police herself. They may even have a long history of disturbed behaviour that no one takes any responsibility for until it is too late.

Paedophiles and rapists go to great lengths, using cunning plans, to commit their crimes and to hide them, and to seek each other out.

And many people who suffer mental illness later in life were themselves victims of sexual abuse in childhood.

Where did anyone say she was being turned out/set free yet? With a new trial it is always possible. Since she has already admitted her guilt and her culpability I don't want her set free. I want her to feel the hell that she inflicted on her helpless children. I think someone she trusts should hold her head under water untill she drowns.

It's hardly possible she will be released if she admitted her guilt, unless the courts are more insane than she is.

If you can find someone murderous enough to carry out that punishment, then you should appeal to that side of their nature. That would really make a lot of sense.

We are not killing them for their own good its for society's good. Some people just forfeit the right to breathe.

And my argument is that it is for society's good to ask ourselves if it's better to react afterwards or try to do our best to stop them from happening in the first place.

 

[AllEars']

On an individual basis it is hard to say. But on a societal basis, paedophiles are more dangerous to children. Psychotic mothers murdering their own children is tragic and horrible but in real terms it doesn't happen particularly often (gets a lot of attention when it does). Nor do psychotic mothers tend to band into secret networks or insert themselves into roles of trust so they can systematically kill children. If they do, they make the jump from being psychotic to being plain evil.

Often enough I'd say. Once is too much.

Hard to be more of a danger to someone than killing them. It is possible to overcome rape with counseling. Killing is a little tougher to overcome. I don't know of any therapist that has successfully raised the dead.

Usually psychotic mothers kill their kids and are then speedily convicted of it

Isn't that what you are arguing against?

They may even have a long history of disturbed behaviour that no one takes any responsibility for until it is too late.

And just who would you suggest take that responsibility for them?

Around here, we hold the guilty party responsible. It's worked pretty well so far.

And many people who suffer mental illness later in life were themselves victims of sexual abuse in childhood.

Source please.

It's hardly possible she will be released if she admitted her guilt, unless the courts are more insane than she is.

You willing to risk it?

Would you be if it were your kids in the bottom of this bitch's bathtub?

If you can find someone murderous enough to carry out that punishment, then you should appeal to that side of their nature. That would really make a lot of sense.

I'm sitting right beside him.

And my argument is that it is for society's good to ask ourselves if it's better to react afterwards or try to do our best to stop them from happening in the first place.

And when our best efforts fail? When all our predictors, all our safeguards, all our vigilance isn't enough? Like it was for this bitch?

Kill her and be done with it. She forfeited. Game, set, match.





*deep breath*

Damn, I see why SnP stays tired all the time. This soapbox business is wearisome.

 

[Gonz]

*deep breath*

Damn, I see why SnP stays tired all the time. This soapbox business is wearisome.

 

[Winky]

So is she free yet and scheduled for Oprah?

 

[Professur]

It's hardly possible she will be released if she admitted her guilt, unless the courts are more insane than she is.

Ask ....

Don't fancy being tagged? Wear a skirt
Fashion-conscious teen avoids 'stupid' accessory
By Lester Haines
Published Friday 11th November 2005 14:56 GMT
Get breaking Reg news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how
A teenager charged with GBH who failed to comply with the conditions of her bail has escaped being tagged after successfully convincing magistrates that the ankle-borne electronic device would look "stupid" with her preferred choice of attire.

Skirt-wearing 18-year-old Natasha Hughes, accused of grevious bodily harm against another woman, found herself before Worcester magistrates after failing to answer the door of her house to police officers on at 2.30am on 1 November - as required by the curfew conditions of her bail.

The Crown Prosecution Service demanded she be tagged as a result, but Hughes lawyer argued it would be visible, look strange and "affect her dress sense". Magistrates agreed, and Hughes walked tagless from the court.

She still faces another appearance before the beak, and a maximum five years' jail if convicted on the GBH rap.

and ye shall receive.


Source


And that's not even mentioning the spilled coffee.

 

[chcr]

The law is an ass.

 

[Gonz]

*whew* it's not just stupid white people on this side of the pond