  |
07-26-2006, 01:16 PM
|
#8
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Mommysavers Member
Last Online: Yesterday 10:52 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Medford, OR
Posts: 480
|
I really don't like the defense for insainity. However, it's a really difficult thing to pull off in the courts, anymore because it is used so much. So, good for her. I don't think one should be labeled "not guilty" simply because they are unstable. Nonetheless, she was and people are. The thing that is odd to me, is that she had 5 children and her husband never noticed her instability? To claim insainity is not a temporary action - now if she had claimed she "snapped" it would be more believeable to me. She knew this act was wrong, obviously afterwards. She felt remorse, does that mean she was or was not insane? I don't know. Maybe she'd be a sociopath and in prision then.
When people generally use that defense - it is someone who has a past history of mental illness (Which perhaps she had). It bothers me that she killed 5 children and will be in a mental institution with the POSSIBILITY of getting out. While she will be continually evaluated, if she failed to meet the states definition in the first place, what will keep her in the institution for long enough?
What is long enough in this case? It's not that I think that she's NOT insane because I don't have enough background on the trial. However, I'm one for rehabilitation and if she stays in the mental instituion long enough - maybe it's the best thing. To me, though, it seems that if she felt a distinction between right and wrong in the crime than it isn't much of a question if she should be punished for the action which she knew was wrong. JMO
|
|
|
|
|