IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Should Andrea Yates get the death penalty? I don't think so.
It's clear the woman had (and may still have) severe mental problems.

I think the law continues to have difficulties in judging cases involving people with mental illness.

Did she commit a terrible crime? Yes.

Should she suffer consequences for that crime? Yes.

The question, to my mind, is - what should those consequences be?

I think she shoud be confined to a mental hospital until she's recovered sufficiently to be a functional member of society. If that recovery takes less than 5 years, then she should spend the remainder of the time in a minimum security prison. (We can argue whether 5 years is fair or sufficient.)

Putting her to death isn't going to serve as a deterrent nor will it protect society.

Compare this case to the killing of Kevin Shifflett. A paranoid schitzophrenic man, Gregory D. Murphy, is charged with stabbing to death an 8 year old boy as he played in the yard of his grandmother's house. A Virginia judge ruled that Murphy can be [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A34648-2001Apr3|forcibly medicated] to make him competent for court proceedings. That ruling was upheld on appeal to a Federal Court. (Note that this doesn't mean that he's been ruled competent to stand trial.) Neither side disputes that the man has severe mental illness.

Murphy also committed a horrible crime. He committed a terrible random act of violence on a child. He also should suffer consequences for his actions. But I think it's clear to almost everyone that he has terrible mental problems which make him less responsible for his actions than you or me.

Yates killed her children - children she must have loved dearly. She shouldn't be punished the same way as someone who kills out of simple rage, greed or hatred. Her brain disease is a strongly mitigating circumstance.

The brain is a wonderful, beautiful thing. But it is an organic thing and sometimes truly doesn't work properly. Making someone responsible, to the same extent as for you and me, for actions they commit when their brain is diseased isn't productive, logical, nor humane.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New But according to the prior definition...
...none of those kids would survive on a desert island alone...

so, to extend, she did nothing wrong at all...just her choice.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Sheesh BeeP.
Scott writes a thoughtful and intelligent analysis and you.. riposte with a smarmy marlowesque piece of doggerel?

Now that's not even Econ-level. OK - maybe the Enron heresy has put you off your feed; seein all them market principles shredded into illegibility and bleedin.. could cause a bit of gall-bladder trouble (?)





:-\ufffd
New You're confused, again.
You're applying a marlowe "definition"
-to-
an analysis of a different situation by Scott

Now, if you had applied marlowe's "definition"
-to-
an analysis of a different sittuation BY MARLOWE
-then-
you would have been correct.

Otherwise, you must FIRST ascertain whether Scott endorses Marlowe's "definition".
-then-
You can point out where they cross.

And I have to point this out to an adult.....because?
New no, i'm not
now you seem to have the 2 post prior problem.

I responded to Marlowes "right to life" definition.

Scott gave a rather eloquent dissertation on the case in Texas I referenced in my earlier post. I then clarified...becuase using the texas example was questionable due to the womans sanity.

I clarified my earlier post to Marlowe.

Keep up
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Hmmm, my monitor must be broken, then.
You see, in my display, your post seems to be in reply to Scott's.

But you say you're replying to Marlowe?

You say that you're clarifying your post to Marlowe?

By replying to Scott's post?

But Scott's post was in reply to your post that was in reply to Marlowe's post.

Brandioch
Marlowe
Tony
Marlowe
Bill
Scott
Bill (But according to the prior definition...)
Brandioch
Bill
Brandioch (this post)

Ummmm, no. You were applying Marlowe's definition to Scott's post.

Especially when your "post" consisted of:

"...none of those kids would survive on a desert island alone..."
-and-
"so, to extend, she did nothing wrong at all...just her choice."

Now, your "desert island" phrasing seems to be a paraphrase of Marlowe's:
"If you can survive on a desert island without any help from other human beings, then you have a right to life."

Which just leaves:
"so, to extend, she did nothing wrong at all...just her choice."
As your "clarification" of your original post.

And you think that I'm the one that is confused?
New yep i think your the confused one.
I bet Scott understood.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     Fetus reclassified as \ufffdunborn child\ufffd - (Brandioch) - (44)
         interesting you have to be a US citizen to be eligble - (boxley) - (1)
             Not all the time - (nking)
         Rowe vs. Wade - (nking) - (4)
             Drinking alcohol during pregnancy? - (Brandioch) - (1)
                 Some women do it anyway - (nking)
             I believe 'retrospective abortion' is the term :) - (Meerkat)
             It is ROE versus Wade - (ben_tilly)
         Birth of 'The United Sanctified States' imminent? - (Ashton)
         Wheat and corn reclassifed as "pre-digested crap" - (Silverlock) - (7)
             Baby==crap? Assholes? My, my. Such black thoughts. - (marlowe) - (6)
                 That acerbic wit just slays me. - (Silverlock) - (5)
                     A simple "you win again" would have sufficed. -NT - (marlowe) - (4)
                         Well then, why didn't you say so before? Thanks! -NT - (Silverlock) - (3)
                             You ruminated for two days, and came up with this? -NT - (marlowe) - (2)
                                 Nah, couple seconds. I stay away from here on weekends. -NT - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                     Okay, fair enough. But couldn't you have tried harder? - (marlowe)
         As opposed to a born child? - (marlowe) - (27)
             Yes. I was. - (Brandioch) - (26)
                 OK, so why can't we abort you? - (tonytib) - (25)
                     *Masturbation Murderers*___or:___ Logic is such sterile fun. - (Ashton)
                     Is he an independently viable life form? - (marlowe) - (9)
                         Wow... - (bepatient) - (7)
                             Should Andrea Yates get the death penalty? I don't think so. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                 But according to the prior definition... - (bepatient) - (5)
                                     Sheesh BeeP. - (Ashton)
                                     You're confused, again. - (Brandioch) - (3)
                                         no, i'm not - (bepatient) - (2)
                                             Hmmm, my monitor must be broken, then. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                 yep i think your the confused one. - (bepatient)
                         thanks...you got my point -NT - (tonytib)
                     lingwage ez eeeeeezeeeeee. - (Brandioch) - (13)
                         Yeah, it's so easy.....you can't even get it right! - (tonytib) - (5)
                             Sure, just re-classify me. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                 But you're NOT viable on your own -NT - (tonytib) - (3)
                                     WTF are you gibbering about, Tone??? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                         LRPD: "Smoke the pipe, and there will be no lies between us" -NT - (Ashton)
                                     Is this going to be another "definition"? - (Brandioch)
                         If I abort you - (boxley)
                         Anyone want to answer this? - (Brandioch) - (5)
                             you are discussing the legality - (boxley) - (4)
                                 Either way. - (Brandioch) - (3)
                                     eh, scraping with knives works both ways? - (boxley) - (2)
                                         *sigh* - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                             point==taken -NT - (boxley)

Then again you wonder how certain people sign their names to anything and still choose to leave the house.
122 ms