Teen stabs her newborn over 100 times, throws her in garbage...

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Wow. Sad story. I'd like to know more details though before making such ridiculous comments as the ones above. Not that there's any justification for what she did, but there could certainly be extenuating circumstances we're unaware of. For example, where's the baby's father? Who is he, how did she get pregnant, and why wasn't he around to help?

I'm not going to judge her except to say that she obviously needed help she didn't get for some reason.

Pathetic. Who the hell cares where the babies fater is. Just sick you can even think like this.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its really starting to frost my tips that every single trial goes to an insanity defense.

That scumbag who ran over the girl here in Calgary and then said that he didn't recall hitting her because he was so stressed out about his divorce.

This girl stabbing a baby over a hundred times and already there's talk that she's insane or she suffered a rage or fear induced blackout.

I'm sorry, I don't really fully believe in it. At her core she knew what she was doing, a 100 jabs of a knife tells me that.

Its irrelevant if she's insane or not, the question that has to be answered is does she know right from wrong. In my mind if she doesn't she shouldn't be around other people, and if she does, then she committed a major crime and shouldn't be around other people.

I guess thats why I'll never be a judge, because I don't believe in the blackout theory, or a crime of fear or passion or anger being an excuse for taking a life.

I know it sounds lame but unfortunately because you don't recognize something in every case, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
To me, dude running over a person and killing them, no chance of insanity whether they plead it or not. A mother killing her child and with the rage shown, shows a level of unhingedness. I think also in this case there's probably an inacurate assumption that pleading insanity in any way means they walk. If she's as whacked as I assume she must be, she needs locking away in an institution for mentally disturbed people. Which probably isn't a walk in the park either.
I will hasten to add that I'm not an expert in any way on this, just speculation.

[transplant99]

A mother killing her child and with the rage shown, shows a level of unhingedness.

Yep, but IIRC it is NOT allowed as a "sign" of insanity.

Rage is not a defense.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I think all the comments on here are a reaction to the horror of the incident. For some one to do something as horrible to their own newborn is a pretty good sign that the elevator doesnt go all the way to the top - at least at the moment of the incident.

You do the crime you do the time. I'm not one of the people that thinks she needs to be killed or tortured but she deserves to be locked up and pay for what she did.

And I would say anybody who commits a murder that isnt self defense has a few screws loose.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I see I'm going to have to choose my words very carefully for fear of being taken too literally. Let's try this again.

Killing or torturing her won't solve the root issues. It will solve immediate issues, and nothing more. It's like putting a wad of gum in a leaky roof. Not going to fix anything in the long term.

In such personal crimes, the entire trial, guilty verdict and resulting punishment give closure to the family. How many times have you heard families say that they can "move on, now that it's all over"? It's not about taking an eye for an eye. A guilty verdict doesn't have to mean death for it to give a family closure.

In this case, how do you think her mother would feel if the system decided to take her daughter's life? Now she's not only lost a grandchild she didn't know about, she's also lost her daughter. (One could argue that the daughter is already lost, but at least mom can visit her.)

Is the surviving populace actually threatened by her? Is the "quest" for "justice" really ours to worry about? She'll already be serving a life sentence dealing with what she's done. Is it a "quest" for justice, or is it bloodlust? What is justice? What would be justice in this case, and for whom? If punishment was really for rehab, why are there so many multiple offenders?

I'll start with the easiest first. Because rehab doesn't always work. That's like saying "if aadac is really for helping people quit drinking, why do so many people keep drinking even after they've been?" If punishment isn't for rehab, why do we let them back out of prison once we've put them there? Why do parents temporarily ground their children when they are bad when so many of them get in trouble again later? Sound silly to you? Me too.

It has never been in contention that a sentence often gives a family closure. What I'm trying to say is that the main PURPOSE of the sentence isn't generally just to give the family closure. If that were the case, sentencing would swing to the harsh side to make sure all families were satisfied. I see I'm going to have to choose my words very carefully for fear of being taken too literally . I was not suggesting at all that death was the only way to get closure. Death is the most extreme form of punishment handed out by North American law (yes, you can argue that other punishments are actually worse, but death is considered to be the last resort in those places where it is dealt out). If the goal is to give the families closure, then handing out the maximum punishment is probably the best way to satisfy the maximum number of families.

I am not advocating killing her, nor am I advocating killing all murderers. If you paid attention to what I was saying, rather than what you wish I was saying because it's easier to argue against (i.e. straw man fallacy), you would realize that I am arguing against the idea that the purpose of punishment is closure for the families.

In this case, by your own arguments, it would seem that not to punish her would be the thing to do, because punishing her wouldn't make her own mother happy. So she should get off scot-free for stabbing her own baby because she IS the family for whom the purpose of punishment is to bring closure. Or she should just get mental help, because she is insane, and not be punished. I know that's not what you mean, but that's what you seem to be saying.

What is justice in this case? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. I don't even know how it should be determined what justice is. I do know that justice isn't just "bringing closure to the family".

[SpitFire40]

Originally Posted by fotze

I called her whore and I shouldn't have, not that she doesn't deserve a bad name, but that one was not particularily fitting the situation. It definately wasn't the teenage pregnancy thing that got to me it was the stabby thing.

I just find it funny that when a man does something horrific he is a monster. That guy who chopped his buddy up is a monster. But the second a woman does something horrific, the first reaction is "a man must have done something to her to make her do that" or "she had mental problems". Hell, even that movie Monster made it that she wasn't really a monster, men made her that way.

I think of the top awful things a woman can do, this has to be number 1. To defend her (which no one is of course) is to make light of all the teenage pregnancies that the girl takes the better option of adoption or keeping it.

Good post fotze... Probably the only good one in this entire thread.

[the_only_turek_fan]

My cousin was telling me in California where he used to live, if you had a baby you didn't want you could drop it off at the Sheriff's office and just leave, no questions asked.

Like a lot of posters said, there are many couples that would have taken the baby, this was not necessary. This stuff should be common sense, but some times common sense is not always common. I am not perfect so I am not going to judge this girl.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Inferno

You do the crime you do the time. I'm not one of the people that thinks she needs to be killed or tortured but she deserves to be locked up and pay for what she did.

And I would say anybody who commits a murder that isnt self defense has a few screws loose.

Alright - Im not sure if youre saying that I have a few screws loose or what.

Im the furthest thing from a bleeding-heart hippie that believes in hugs and rehabbing and so forth. I think she should be locked up - the rest of my post says that insane defenses are rare and that I think she'll serve time - and lots of it.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Alright - Im not sure if youre saying that I have a few screws loose or what.

What would make you think that?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

In this case, by your own arguments, it would seem that not to punish her would be the thing to do, because punishing her wouldn't make her own mother happy. So she should get off scot-free for stabbing her own baby because she IS the family for whom the purpose of punishment is to bring closure. Or she should just get mental help, because she is insane, and not be punished. I know that's not what you mean, but that's what you seem to be saying.

No, I think she needs help and needs to be locked up in a mental institute. I'm saying that throwing her in a cell, and/or killing her won't help anyone in this situation, rather, she seems in deperate need of serious help. The family looking for retribution is the same family looking for help for their daughter. If she is insane, then she won't understand the punishment because she doesn't even understand the crime. Help her understand the crime to help her understand her punishment.

[Calgaryborn]

I think she should be executed. Other than in the case of accidental death I think all murderers should be killed. I don't see the purpose of capital punishment being closure for the family. I just believe that if you take a life you should lose your life, period.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think she should be executed. Other than in the case of accidental death I think all murderers should be killed. I don't see the purpose of capital punishment being closure for the family. I just believe that if you take a life you should lose your life, period.

Wow. Aren't you a Christian?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Wow. Aren't you a Christian?

Yup and as a Christian I know that God specifically introduced capital punishment after the flood. I also read that God caused the flood because of violence upon the earth. Can you imagine the anger God had when after he spared humanity in the garden from their sentence of death that the very next generation someone would take a life. Then what was it? -two generations later another murder. By the time Noah came along murder was common place. After the flood God did two things. He introduced capital punishment and he shorten the man's lifespan and rightly so.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yup and as a Christian I know that God specifically introduced capital punishment after the flood. I also read that God caused the flood because of violence upon the earth. Can you imagine the anger God had when after he spared humanity in the garden from their sentence of death that the very next generation someone would take a life. Then what was it? -two generations later another murder. By the time Noah came along murder was common place. After the flood God did two things. He introduced capital punishment and he shorten the man's lifespan and rightly so.

And then afterwards he gave the world Jesus so that our sins could be forgiven. Or don't you like the whole "New Testament" part of being a Christian?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And then afterwards he gave the world Jesus so that our sins could be forgiven. Or don't you like the whole "New Testament" part of being a Christian?

And he also set up the government, and never specifically mentioned that capital punishment should be withdrawn.

In fact...

A verse in Romans 13:

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And then afterwards he gave the world Jesus so that our sins could be forgiven. Or don't you like the whole "New Testament" part of being a Christian?

Jesus never called upon the government to cease administering law and order. If your going to imply that the standard we are personally called to
should be applied to the State then you must believe that the government should forgive all criminals for their first 490 offences. Fortunately the New Testament doesn't say that.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Jesus never called upon the government to cease administering law and order. If your going to imply that the standard we are personally called to
should be applied to the State then you must believe that the government should forgive all criminals for their first 490 offences. Fortunately the New Testament doesn't say that.

No, but he tells us to throw out an eye for an eye.

[PYroMaNiaC]

....and another thread boils with religion.

Personally, I'm surprised that no one has figured out that the Bible makes no sense at all. Any other really good, publicly acclaimed, prize winning book at least has a consistant story.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, but he tells us to throw out an eye for an eye.

Where?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, but he tells us to throw out an eye for an eye.

Which if read in context refers to the individual.

How does the government turn the other cheek?