A Crime of the Ages?

Question

A woman drowned her 5 kids, ONE AT A TIME, in the home bathtub a few years ago. Recall? Then came the FAMOUS psychologists to explain away why this crime was done. I hate it when so-called experts step into the equation to provide their view of what they think took place. I think the woman's name is Yates (not sure).

In the days of the Roman Empire, she would have crucified in public for such a crime. Why defend criminals? Why?

Your view?

Answer 1

The same woman is in prison, serving time for her murders. The defense was trying to get her excused on the basis of insanity or mental defect. The purpose was to lessen the punishment, not to defend the act.

Answer 2

In this country a person is assumed innocent until found guilty. Certainly our society has mis-used the system, and many guilty people have been set free because of a loop hole or an insanity plea. I don't advocate the mis-use of the system, but there are some who are not responsible for their actions because of mental illness. Should we kill them all? NO!

Also, many innocent people are put on trial every year. To systematically kill off the offenders without benefit of a defense would reduce our society to the days of the Romans, when accusations could send someone into the arena to be publicly consumed by the lions.

Answer 3

you have to ask yourself a question, was there depression anxiety and other sorts of Psycological illnesses back in the roman days? I think there might have been but most people just think they are sick because it explains why they are failling in life. And most psychologists will say anything just to get there name in the paper to get more clients that want to be told they are sick, so they can get more pills. I think the onlly time a psychologist should be used when in a trial situation, is when a actual "retarded" person or very young person are brought in because they murdered someone. the adolescent brain is far different from an adults, and a handicapped person is the same way. Otherwise, be a man and stand up for the crim you commited.

Answer 4

If ever you come to realize the difference between a criminal action and the action of the mentally disturbed, then you may comment.
Until such time (if ever), I'll be happy to loan you my Andy's Handy-Dandy Pocket Portable Time Machine and send you back to Rome, where you will obviously be a lot happier. Would you perfer to watch Christ's crucifixion or Spartacus'? Or perhaps you'd rather participate? I could send some galvanized ten-penny nails back with you.

Answer 5

Would you ignore completely the fact that this women is quite clearly insane?

Apart from some bloodthirsty sense of revenge, what possible use is there in punishing this person? It will be no deterrent to the next lunatic who does something similar.

Crime and punishment is more complex that making the public feel satisfied with a pound of flesh.

CD

Answer 6

Because, right or wrong, our more civilized society accepts the concept that a person may not be mentally able to determine their actions are wrong, and thus not criminal. Unfortunatly, many guilty people hide behind the same shield used to protect those who are mentally ill.

Answer 7

I certainly wouldn't defend this but I wouldn't have her crucified in public either. She gets to live with what she's done for the rest of her life. And then has to face whatever "reward" is awaiting her in the next life!

Answer 8

because it scares people to think someone can do a thing that horrible and wrong (to their own children) without something being mentally wrong with them. I know that's really not a good excuse that because they were mentally ill they did it, but sometimes we just look for something to give us a bit of comfort

Answer 9

They should be executed. As one guy told me, "If we started publicly executing them, before long the insane will start trying to act sane."

Answer 10

because that is what they are getting paid to do sometime people can be pretty twisted