Tutters, moaners and screamers required for thread participation

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:28 pm

Where's the Moral Majority when you want them?

What would we like to see done to a woman who kills her room mate by tying a plastic bag round the room mate's head to suffocate her?

Hanging's too good? She should be suffocated to death in a process of judicial revenge? Anyone want to shoot her themselves if they ever get the opportunity, so they could express their outrage directly?

Come on, don't be shy. Participate. Be as unkind as you can manage. You know it makes sense.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:23 pm

spot;1272578 wrote: Where's the Moral Majority when you want them?

What would we like to see done to a woman who kills her room mate by tying a plastic bag round the room mate's head to suffocate her?

Hanging's too good? She should be suffocated to death in a process of judicial revenge? Anyone want to shoot her themselves if they ever get the opportunity, so they could express their outrage directly?

Come on, don't be shy. Participate. Be as unkind as you can manage. You know it makes sense.

How about some good old fashioned due process of the law?

Innocent until proven guilty, court of law, jury of peers. That kind of thing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:19 am

I'd say there are probably a large number of prison guards that just love it when things like this happen so they can freely rape the offender repeatedly without any consequences to themselves. Free sex for them. But she'd deserve it, wouldn't she?

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:58 am

spot;1272578 wrote:

What would we like to see done to a woman who kills her room mate by tying a plastic bag round the room mate's head to suffocate her?

What was her reason for doing it?

What circumstances precipitated this tragic event?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:05 am

Maybe beating her senseless with a baby seal might appease the screamers

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:08 am

Snowfire;1272611 wrote: Maybe beating her senseless with a baby seal might appease the screamers

ooohhh will said 'baby seal' be alive or dead...

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:11 am

Betty Boop;1272613 wrote: ooohhh will said 'baby seal' be alive or dead...

Oh I think a live one would make more of a statement

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:11 am

Snowfire;1272615 wrote: Oh I think a live one would make more of a statement

:D Ok.

Mustang · Post by **Mustang** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:12 am

Is this the case you're speaking of Spot?

Woman, 98, indicted on murder charges - The Boston Globe

The woman is undergoing a competency evaluation and has a court date set for January 5th. She suffers from dementia.

I do believe the nursing home should be held accountable, for ignoring the warnings about a problem they recieved from the roommate prior to her death.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:38 am

Mustang;1272635 wrote: Is this the case you're speaking of Spot?

Woman, 98, indicted on murder charges - The Boston Globe

The woman is undergoing a competency evaluation and has a court date set for January 5th. She suffers from dementia.

I do believe the nursing home should be held accountable, for ignoring the warnings about a problem they recieved from the roommate prior to her death.This changes nothing in regards to my point other than it would make things more kinky.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:48 am

Mustang;1272635 wrote:

I do believe the nursing home should be held accountable, for ignoring the warnings about a problem they recieved from the roommate prior to her death.

If this is the case Spot is asking us about, I agree with Mustang that the nursing home should be held accountable. I took this from the article: When a nurse’s aide moved the table, Lundquist punched her and said Barrow “might as well have the whole room,’’ prosecutors alleged.

Lundquist had also vowed she would get Barrow’s window-side bed because, “she was going to outlive her,’’ prosecutors and defense lawyers said.

This clearly shows that this woman should have been transfered to a facility where they were better equiped to deal with this type of behavior. This is a sad story, IMO, not only for the victim but for Lundquist as well because it all could have been prevented by the nursing home.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:04 am

Mustang;1272635 wrote: Is this the case you're speaking of Spot?

Woman, 98, indicted on murder charges - The Boston Globe

The woman is undergoing a competency evaluation and has a court date set for January 5th. She suffers from dementia.

I do believe the nursing home should be held accountable, for ignoring the warnings about a problem they recieved from the roommate prior to her death.

In latter stages of Dementia, patients show signs of anger, they loose their tempers, loud outbursts occur, many that are threatening, they also raise their fists and hands in anger.

I've seen this and caregivers do stop this asap.

You can't always have a caregiver present in each room at all times, its just not possible.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:33 am

Oh hang on chaps, be careful what you're doing here. If you allow dementia as a get-out from your hatred for People Who Kill you'll end up with some of you letting other psychoses provide an excuse. How many times have we had threads which blamed killers suffering from schizophrenia or one of the other recognised mental illnesses? Are you collectively going soft on killers all of a sudden?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:44 am

spot;1272654 wrote: Oh hang on chaps, be careful what you're doing here. If you allow dementia as a get-out from your hatred for People Who Kill you'll end up with some of you letting other psychoses provide an excuse. How many times have we had threads which blamed killers suffering from schizophrenia or one of the other recognised mental illnesses? Are you collectively going soft on killers all of a sudden?

This was indeed a horrific accident.

the other ones your referring to, were out on the streets on their own, everyone knowing full well their sicknesses.

those ones should have been in a mental institution.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:49 am

Odie;1272655 wrote: This was indeed a horrific accident.

the other ones your referring to, were out on the streets on their own, everyone knowing full well their sicknesses.

those ones should have been in a mental institution.

Surely it's a case of this lady slipped through the net, just as prior schizophrenics who have killed have slipped through too. The one common denominator here is that sadly they are all suffering from forms of mental illness.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:08 am

Betty Boop;1272656 wrote: Surely it's a case of this lady slipped through the net, just as prior schizophrenics who have killed have slipped through too. The one common denominator here is that sadly they are all suffering from forms of mental illness.I'm willing to submit to moral illness but not necessarily a mental illness. I'm beginning to doubt mental illness and think "illness" is a means to justify separation, though we are getting better at caring as time advances.

EDIT: Upon further consideration, I guess moral illness lands us in jail and mental illness lands us in the psycho ward. Now I see why we only use "illness" in one scenario. I wonder if we'd be more sympathetic if we used it for crimes....moral illness....I like it.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:10 am

Ahso!;1272661 wrote: I'm willing to submit to moral illness but not necessarily a mental illness. I'm beginning to doubt mental illness and think "illness" is a means to justify separation, though we are getting better at caring as time advances.

So you'd say that, with or without the symptoms of dementia, there's no such thing as mental illness so she should be held criminally responsible for her action?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:18 am

spot;1272665 wrote: So you'd say that, with or without the symptoms of dementia, there's no such thing as mental illness so she should be held criminally responsible for her action?Mental illness scares me. Our history of institutionalizing people and our tendency to over diagnose and over medicate is frightening.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:25 am

Odie;1272655 wrote: the other ones your referring to, were out on the streets on their own, everyone knowing full well their sicknesses.You're saying nobody knew this woman's condition, Odie? That's not what the article says, it says that her dementia was apparent before the killing happened but that no safety precautions or suitable treatment was being provided.

As for "out on the streets on their own, everyone knowing full well their sicknesses" that's just a proportion of schizophrenic killers, the ones the headlines scream "why was this beast not already locked in a secure unit". Others aren't diagnosed until after they've attacked someone, rather like the woman we're discussing. You're trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist if you pretend "everyone" knew beforehand for schizophrenics but nobody knew beforehand for the demented.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:33 am

Ahso!;1272670 wrote: Mental illness scares me. Our history of institutionalizing people and our tendency to over diagnose and over medicate is frightening.

The case in point was scarcely over-diagnosed, if indeed it was diagnosed at all, and the institutionalizing was a pretty uncontrolled environment.

Should she be held criminally responsible for her action, and why? You're claiming there's this spectrum of behaviour, which is fair enough. If you also draw a line through the spectrum and absolve those to one side of the line from criminal responsibility then why can't I label that side of the line with an identifying tag like "demented" or "schizophrenic".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:34 am

Mental illness implies that those without it are a finished, polished product, which I completely disagree with as there is no such thing. Morality is cultural which provides us with an end product with respect to behavior.

People with a mental illness may manifest that in terms of moral sickness. Either way using the umbrella of moral illness covers everything and only becomes a matter of applying therapy tailored to each individual.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:39 am

I have no idea why some people are so against sending criminals to hospitals. Those that go to jail have a date set for release regardless of rehabilitation. Those that are deemed mentally ill are held indefinitely.

imho, anyone who murders, rapes, molests or other extreme crimes against society are automatically mentally and/or emotionally insane. That's why they were unable to grasp or follow the expectations. I'd much rather they all get treatment and be held until decidedly rehabilitated.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:41 am

Ahso!;1272677 wrote: Mental illness implies that those without it are a finished, polished product, which I completely disagree with as there is no such thing. Morality is cultural which provides us with an end product with respect to behavior.

People with a mental illness may manifest that in terms of moral sickness. Either way using the umbrella of moral illness covers everything and only becomes a matter of applying therapy tailored to each individual.

Your problem is that we're discussing society as it exists, and a legal system which recognises the term "mental illness" but has no mention anywhere of "moral illness". We can either discuss what-if alternative worlds or we can discuss current events. I brought one specific case into the thread to test the waters of compassion on FG. So far nobody's said they'd like to shoot her so they can feel good doing it, which is a hopeful sign. I'm wondering why they've restrained themselves in this instance.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:47 am

spot;1272683 wrote: Your problem is that we're discussing society as it exists, and a legal system which recognises the term "mental illness" but has no mention anywhere of "moral illness". We can either discuss what-if alternative worlds or we can discuss current events. I brought one specific case into the thread to test the waters of compassion on FG. So far nobody's said they'd like to shoot her so they can feel good doing it, which is a hopeful sign. I'm wondering why they've restrained themselves in this instance.You're right! Sorry! But I hope my position is clear enough. I'd see it as a necessity for care rather than punishment. I'll let others speak...

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:52 am

Ahso!;1272686 wrote: You're right! Sorry! But I hope my position is clear enough.

Well, no, it's not which is why I asked about drawing the line. Without a line there's no behaviour at all by anyone for which they'd be criminally responsible. Here it is again, it would be interesting to see your considered answer.You're claiming there's this spectrum of behaviour, which is fair enough. If you also draw a line through the spectrum and absolve those to one side of the line from criminal responsibility then why can't I label that side of the line with an identifying tag like "demented" or "schizophrenic".

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:21 am

Jazzy;1272642 wrote: This clearly shows that this woman should have been transfered to a facility where they were better equiped to deal with this type of behavior. This is a sad story, IMO, not only for the victim but for Lundquist as well because it all could have been prevented by the nursing home.Jazzy, do you think you're capable of writing that same sentence if the thread were about a killer with schizophrenia instead of dementia? As an example, FG has "discussed" Canada bus killer not accountable in previous threads. How does he compare with Ms Lundquist, in your opinion? To the best of my knowledge, Vince Li had never had a psychiatric evaluation before he killed. I think it's fair to say that neither his killing nor that of Ms Lundquist could have been forecast in advance.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:24 am

Betty Boop;1272656 wrote: Surely it's a case of this lady slipped through the net, just as prior schizophrenics who have killed have slipped through too. The one common denominator here is that sadly they are all suffering from forms of mental illness.

She didn't slip through the net, she was in a nursing home becasue she had dementia.

it was as said, a dreadful accident.

The others discussed in previous threads were on the streets and people knew about their mental sicknesses.

big big difference.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:29 am

spot;1272578 wrote: Where's the Moral Majority when you want them?

What would we like to see done to a woman who kills her room mate by tying a plastic bag round the room mate's head to suffocate her?

Hanging's too good? She should be suffocated to death in a process of judicial revenge? Anyone want to shoot her themselves if they ever get the opportunity, so they could express their outrage directly?

Come on, don't be shy. Participate. Be as unkind as you can manage. You know it makes sense. Care to add a link to this story old boy? You have been known for getting facts of court cases wrong in the past so It would be benificial to read the entire story or is this just your opinion?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:32 am

oscar;1272719 wrote: Care to add a link to this story old boy? You have been known for getting facts of court cases wrong in the past so It would be benificial to read the entire story or is this just your opinion?It has been linked earlier in the thread by Mustang.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:33 am

spot;1272671 wrote: You're saying nobody knew this woman's condition, Odie? That's not what the article says, it says that her dementia was apparent before the killing happened but that no safety precautions or suitable treatment was being provided.

As for "out on the streets on their own, everyone knowing full well their sicknesses" that's just a proportion of schizophrenic killers, the ones the headlines scream "why was this beast not already locked in a secure unit". Others aren't diagnosed until after they've attacked someone, rather like the woman we're discussing. You're trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist if you pretend "everyone" knew beforehand for schizophrenics but nobody knew beforehand for the demented.

She was in a nursing home becasue she had dementia.:rolleyes:

did you not read she was in a nursing home?

the ones we discussed here in threads were out on the streets and others knew of their conditions.

lets not make another mountain out of a molehill shall we?:wah:

we are here to discuss the woman.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:36 am

Odie;1272716 wrote: She didn't slip through the net, she was in a nursing home becasue she had dementia.You've invented that, it's not true. Go back and read the article. That's not the reason she was in the nursing home.

Odie wrote:

it was as said, a dreadful accident.

The others discussed in previous threads were on the streets and people knew about their mental sicknesses.

big big difference.

You've invented that, it's not true. Vince Li, for example, had never been diagnosed or even thought of as having a mental illness before he beheaded that chap on the Greyhound Canada bus last year. For some reason you see Ms Lundquist's killing as "a dreadful accident" but the other - shall I browse back and find all the spittle-coated things that were shrieked about Vince Li on ForumGarden?

Why was Vince Li's killing not "a dreadful accident" in the same way as this one?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:38 am

Ahso!;1272722 wrote: It has been linked earlier in the thread by Mustang. Thankyou... I couldn't be arssed to look Initially but now have and read It.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:07 pm

spot;1272725 wrote: You've invented that, it's not true. Go back and read the article. That's not the reason she was in the nursing home.

You've invented that, it's not true. Vince Li, for example, had never been diagnosed or even thought of as having a mental illness before he beheaded that chap on the Greyhound Canada bus last year. For some reason you see Ms Lundquist's killing as "a dreadful accident" but the other - shall I browse back and find all the spittle-coated things that were shrieked about Vince Li on ForumGarden?

Why was Vince Li's killing not "a dreadful accident" in the same way as this one?

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — A 98-year-old woman was indicted Friday on a second-degree murder charge that alleges she strangled her 100-year-old roommate in a nursing home.

Laura Lundquist was sent to a state mental hospital for a competency evaluation before she is arraigned on the murder charge. Her defense attorney, Carl Levin, said she has a “long-standing diagnosis of dementia," as well as issues of cognitive impairment.

_______________________________________________________________

You never did read this did you Spot?

- Greyhound Bus Killer Vince Li is a " Paranoid Schizophrenic"

by Christina 123 | August 3, 2008 at 01:30 pm

It has been revealed today that Greyhound Bus Killer Vince Li, "is a Paranoid Schizophrenic", say his friends. -Vince Li, 40, arrived in Canada from China four years ago and is notorious for the infamous Greyhound bus beheading in Manitoba of 22 year old Tim McLean.

They say Li was clearly battling mental illness, but refused repeated offers to see a doctor and get help.

"He was definitely schizophrenic, probably paranoid schizophrenic," she said. "He needed help but he just wouldn't get it."

lots more to read up on this Spot.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:36 pm

Odie, "Christina 123" is not a reliable source of information, that's just what she wrote. Her claim doesn't appear in any newspaper that I can find, it's just one more blinkered know-it-all woman insisting that she's right regardless, by inventing evidence out of thin air. Nowhere in any newspaper article is there any evidence that the chap had been previously diagnosed as schizophrenic which is what you keep writing - "people knew about their mental sicknesses", to quote you directly.

"Laura Lundquist was sent to a state mental hospital for a competency evaluation" - and so she was, subsequent to the killing. Her defense counsel is saying what defense counsels say in these circumstances, that she had a long-standing diagnosed dementia. Nobody's said anywhere that dementia was the reason she was in a nursing home which is what you keep writing.

For some reason you see Ms Lundquist's killing as "a dreadful accident" but the other as murder deserving a death sentence. Why do you see a difference?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:41 pm

oscar;1272726 wrote: Thankyou... I couldn't be arssed to look Initially but now have and read It.

Well, maybe it would be best reading the thread before you make statements like this........

oscar;1272719 wrote: Care to add a link to this story old boy? You have been known for getting facts of court cases wrong in the past so It would be benificial to read the entire story or is this just your opinion?

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:46 pm

abbey;1272744 wrote: Well, maybe it would be best reading the thread before you make statements like this........

I very deliberately didn't link my question to any news article because I wanted my question discussing in its own terms, not in terms of all the surrounding hoop-la of a specific case. Now it's turned into specific cases, which is unfortunate. Never mind, one has to work with whatever's to hand.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:12 pm

[QUOTE=spot;1272741]Odie, "Christina 123" is not a reliable source of information, that's just what she wrote. Her claim doesn't appear in any newspaper that I can find, it's just one more blinkered know-it-all woman insisting that she's right regardless, by inventing evidence out of thin air. Nowhere in any newspaper article is there any evidence that the chap had been previously diagnosed as schizophrenic which is what you keep writing - "people knew about their mental sicknesses", to quote you directly.

QUOTE]

CBC News - Manitoba - Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:13 pm

spot;1272746 wrote: I very deliberately didn't link my question to any news article because I wanted my question discussing in its own terms, not in terms of all the surrounding hoop-la of a specific case. Now it's turned into specific cases, which is unfortunate. Never mind, one has to work with whatever's to hand.

Its turned into specific cases because you brought it up.

'Oh hang on chaps, be careful what you're doing here. If you allow dementia as a get-out from your hatred for People Who Kill you'll end up with some of you letting other psychoses provide an excuse. How many times have we had threads which blamed killers suffering from schizophrenia or one of the other recognised mental illnesses? Are you collectively going soft on killers all of a sudden?'

__________________

.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:16 pm

Odie;1272763 wrote: Its turned into specific cases because you brought it up.

'Oh hang on chaps, be careful what you're doing here. If you allow dementia as a get-out from your hatred for People Who Kill you'll end up with some of you letting other psychoses provide an excuse. How many times have we had threads which blamed killers suffering from schizophrenia or one of the other recognised mental illnesses? Are you collectively going soft on killers all of a sudden?'

__________________

.Spot has not contradicted himself, Odie.

Why not just stick to the point of the thread instead of trying to pick Spot apart?...That just isn't going to happen.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:20 pm

Ahso!;1272765 wrote: Spot has not contradicted himself, Odie.

Why not just stick to the point of the thread instead of trying to pick Spot apart?...That just isn't going to happen.

did you not read what he just posted?

'Now it's turned into specific cases,' which is unfortunate.

__________________

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:21 pm

Jazzy;1272761 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;1272741]Odie, "Christina 123" is not a reliable source of information, that's just what she wrote. Her claim doesn't appear in any newspaper that I can find, it's just one more blinkered know-it-all woman insisting that she's right regardless, by inventing evidence out of thin air. Nowhere in any newspaper article is there any evidence that the chap had been previously diagnosed as schizophrenic which is what you keep writing - "people knew about their mental sicknesses", to quote you directly.

CBC News - Manitoba - Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible

Thank you Jazzy. Nowhere in that article is there any evidence that the chap had been previously diagnosed as schizophrenic, either.

What it does say isIn his written ruling, the judge said those who are profoundly ill do not have the mental capacity to intentionally commit a crime. "It is clear that since the 19th century the law has distinguished between those persons who commit criminal acts because of a mental disorder and sane persons," Scurfield said.

I'll stick to my central question, which nobody's answered so far. Why do people on ForumGarden sympathize with Louise[1] Lundquist and not want to throw her into jail and lose the key, or see her executed, or wish they could get their hands on her themselves even if only for ten minutes, while demanding that Vince Li should be executed or never ever released from jail or have his head cut off in retribution?

Would someone like to try to sum up the difference for me? Odie has this confused idea that if it was a pre-existing condition then they're guilty, as far as I can make out, but then if it's Louise[1] Lundquist who has the pre-existing condition it's just "a dreadful accident" instead. The logic escapes me there.

[1] eta: Laura, not Louise, as Carla corrected me a few minutes later.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:31 pm

Odie;1272767 wrote: did you not read what he just posted?

'Now it's turned into specific cases,' which is unfortunate.

__________________He didn't post the link to the case, Mustang did.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:39 pm

It is Laura Lundquist Mr. Spot. I don't sympathize with her I think others do because she is 98 years old and may have demintia. Who wants to see the full force of justice slammed down on a 98 year old women in a facility. I have seem dementia in all its stages up to and including Alzheimer's disease. I think she probably has some dementia, dementia isn't mental illness.

She took the life of another human being she should be prosecuted. What will happen to her is yet to be decided. The family of the women she killed desn't want to see her do jail time for the obvious reason she is 98 years old.

[QUOTE]I'll stick to my central question, which nobody's answered so far. Why do people on ForumGarden sympathize with Louise Lundquist and not want to throw her into jail and lose the key, or see her executed, or wish they could get their hands on her themselves even if only for ten minutes, while demanding that Vince Li should be executed or never ever released from jail or have his head cut off in retribution?[/QUOTE]

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:49 pm

CARLA;1272781 wrote: She took the life of another human being she should be prosecuted. What will happen to her is yet to be decided. The family of the women she killed desn't want to see her do jail time for the obvious reason she is 98 years old.

Why's that an obvious reason? Killers often get life sentences.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:10 pm

The Model Penal Code last updated in 1981 states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code

A key feature of the MPC is its use of standardized mens rea (criminal mind) terms to determine levels of mental states, just as homicide is considered more severe if done intentionally rather than accidentally. These terms are (in descending order) "purposefully", "knowingly," "recklessly", and "negligently", with a fifth state of "strict liability".[1] If an offense requires a specific mental state, then any more severe criminal mental state will suffice. Thus if an offense is defined in the form, "It is illegal to knowingly do X," then it is illegal to do X knowingly or purposely (a more severe state), but not to do so recklessly or negligently (the two less severe states). Absolute liability means that it is illegal to do something, regardless of one's mental state. The use of standard terms allows laws to be relatively simply worded and comprehensible. The two highest forms of culpability, purposely and knowingly, are frequently grouped together as "intentional", whereas recklessness and negligence are considered "unintentional". If a law makes an actor absolutely liable for an offense, the actor can only be guilty of what the MPC calls violations, which only deserve penalties of fines, and no jail time.

Perhaps this code needs to be updated to deal with issues pertaining to the levels of mental states at the time a homicide (like we are discussing in this thread) was commited. I am not judge and jury for the case in discussion and that's why we have a legal process to figure this out.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:13 pm

Jazzy;1272794 wrote: Perhaps this code needs to be updated to deal with issues pertaining to the levels of mental states at the time a homicideWell it was, after some nutter shot President Reagan. The discussions ended up as The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984.

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:20 pm

spot;1272795 wrote: Well it was, after some nutter shot President Reagan. The discussions ended up as The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984.

Thank you Spot and I will need to go read that. Now that I did, this woman will be tried and her attorney will use : The insanity defense which is based on evaluations by forensic professionals that the defendant was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense. Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control his or her behavior at the time of the offense. A defendant making the insanity argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.

This woman in question, IMHO, belonged in a psychiatric facility BEFORE she esculated to killing her room mate. All the warnings signs were there but the nursing home chose to ignore them.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:24 pm

Jazzy;1272798 wrote: Thank you Spot and I will need to go read that.

It's a question of whether she unlawfully took the life of another human being. You accept, presumably, that a pilot remotely aiming drone-carried missiles into a houseful of women and children in Pakistan legally kills them all stone dead, why can't you extend that principle to a person "lacking the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of an act"? Killing is either lawful or unlawful. Someone lacking the mental capacity required to know right from wrong commits no crime when they kill, neither in the eyes of God nor in the eyes of Congress. That's what The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 says anyhow.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:26 pm

She needs to be put to sleep.

Skylark · Post by **Skylark** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:30 pm

spot;1272578 wrote: Where's the Moral Majority when you want them?

What would we like to see done to a woman who kills her room mate by tying a plastic bag round the room mate's head to suffocate her?

Hanging's too good? She should be suffocated to death in a process of judicial revenge? Anyone want to shoot her themselves if they ever get the opportunity, so they could express their outrage directly?

Come on, don't be shy. Participate. Be as unkind as you can manage. You know it makes sense.

I can think of nothing worse than being walled up!