Turn on thread page Beta

This makes me sick to the stomach... watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittten)
    It's just as well that no one is asking for sympathy for her then isn't it. All they are suggesting is that you consider the situation before baying for blood.

    Aid should be given to those who need it, this isn't some sick power game (...''I'll help you because it's fashionable to feel sorry for poor people, but you can die because you did something awful; even though you might not have been responsible for your actions at the time'').

    If she was deemed safe to be allowed back then she would be safe to be allowed back, that's exactly what they'd be checking for :rolleyes: Obviously it would be important for her to have regular check-ups, and if any sign of her 'reverting' showed up then she would be taken back to a secure hospital. If she was never deemed to be safe then she would spend the rest of her life in secure hospital, thus the public are safe, public morality is intact, money is saved, and she isn't unnecessarily killed. There is no reason to kill her except to make you feel better, and I feel vengeance has no place in justice.
    Why shouldn't it? Why should we ignore the fact that a child has died, why should that death go without penalty. Just because you presume she is mentally unstable it doesn't make it so. Does anyone in this thread have actual conclusive, concrete and written evidence that this woman is mentally ill? People need to stop making excuses for events and realise that bad people do exist in this world. Using your logic we should never punish anyone for anything, if someone commits a crime, lets just forget that they did it, rehabilitate them, throw them back onto the street and get on with the next one.

    Lets consider the situation then, as you suggest. A woman has killed a one month old child, totally incapable of defending itself or even experiencing anything at all. A woman who, as far as we can tell, has had no prior history of mental illness, no problems being in a relationship or carrying a child. She has given a reason for killing the child, one which (I'm aware this sounds strange) is logical, it's not as if she said the voices in her head told her to do it. She was fully aware of her actions when she did it, and she should be held accountable.

    Justice should always include at least some degree of vengeance, otherwise whats the point in it, we make the criminal the victim, offering help and a new start. Whilst the victim, or in the case of murder, the victims relatives are left to grieve for their loss. Ask yourself, would you have a drunk driver who hit a child rehabilitated, or punished?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soapy)
    Why shouldn't it? Why should we ignore the fact that a child has died, why should that death go without penalty. Just because you presume she is mentally unstable it doesn't make it so. Does anyone in this thread have actual conclusive, concrete and written evidence that this woman is mentally ill? People need to stop making excuses for events and realise that bad people do exist in this world. Using your logic we should never punish anyone for anything, if someone commits a crime, lets just forget that they did it, rehabilitate them, throw them back onto the street and get on with the next one.

    Lets consider the situation then, as you suggest. A woman has killed a one month old child, totally incapable of defending itself or even experiencing anything at all. A woman who, as far as we can tell, has had no prior history of mental illness, no problems being in a relationship or carrying a child. She has given a reason for killing the child, one which (I'm aware this sounds strange) is logical, it's not as if she said the voices in her head told her to do it. She was fully aware of her actions when she did it, and she should be held accountable.

    Justice should always include at least some degree of vengeance, otherwise whats the point in it, we make the criminal the victim, offering help and a new start. Whilst the victim, or in the case of murder, the victims relatives are left to grieve for their loss. Ask yourself, would you have a drunk driver who hit a child rehabilitated, or punished?
    The point of justice is to try to create some kind of improvement after something bad has happened. No one is saying we should ignore the murder of the baby, just that more killing doesn't solve anything. Killing her wouldn't bring back the baby or make the family's loss any less, so they will be grieving anyway.


    As for the woman's mental health, I've discussed this quite a few times already. If you'd like the longer explanation please go back a couple of pages. But basically:
    There appear to be huge holes in her logic. i.e. She says she didn't want her partner to find out that the child might not be his. Did she think he wouldn't notice that (what he thought was) his child was dead. She doesn't seem to have even considered the consequences (the suffering of the child, the chance of being sentenced to death, the partner finding out and breaking up), and somehow she reached the conclusion that murdering the child was better than coming clean / lying to the partner. Considering the consequences is a very important part of making a decision which she doesn't seem to have done. This in itself seems to suggest that she has some kind of mental illness / lack of cognition.
    It was also on the radio that she was an untreated but diagnosed schizophrenic. I admit I only did one quick google search for more information about this and didn't find anything which said anything more than the OPs article.
    Throughout this thread people have been saying ''if she is mentally ill'' or talking about mentally ill criminals in general.


    I think the major downfall of our current legal system is that it focuses on the wrong things. I think the most significant people hurt by criminals are the victims, not the state / laws, however the justice system focuses on the criminal getting 'what they deserve' for breaking a law rather than paying back what they owe to help the victim's needs be addressed. Who is helped (and how) by making someone else hurt? Our courts focus on what the criminal did against the state and forgets the suffering of the victim. It would be fairer and more productive to change the focus from the criminal to the victim. The victim deserves to know what happened / what is happening and why, to receive some form of restitution, evidence the criminal has accepted responsibility for their actions, and assurance it won't happen again (i.e. something is being done to prevent other people committing crimes like this crime). How does the current justice system address any of these needs? I don't think it does. It feeds the desire for vengeance, but that hasn't solved any of the problems or fulfilled any of the victims needs. This is getting a bit off topic now. If you're interested please start another thread / pm me and I'll be happy to explain in full.

    In your drunk driver situation (I'm assuming you mean the child is killed here) I would:
    - Expect the drive to accept responsibility for the accidental killing of the child.
    - Expect the driver to apologise. This apology should be made to the family either through the press or written, or in person if they want to meet the driver. If the family want it they should also be given the answers (where possible) to the questions they have, however I think it is quite possible they wouldn't want anything to do with the driver and would rather leave their questions unanswered.
    - The victims should have as much of a role in the justice settlement as they want. In this case the parents would be of very little importance in the trial as it is a trial between the state and the defendent. I'm not sure how this could be addressed without a large scale change to something more like the New Zealand justice system.
    - Some kind of repayment should be made to the victims. In the case of a death it is difficult to say exactly what this ought to be, but the victims should have some say (within reason) as to what they think would be suitable.
    - Secondly something should be paid back to the state for breaking the law. The killing of the child is firmly placed above the breaking of a law in the ''importantness ranking''. In this case it might be time in prison, losing their driving licence or voluntary work or a combination of the 3.
    - If the driver is an alcoholic then they should be enrolled in some kind of support group to help them stop drinking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    That's horrible, the woman clearly is mentally unstable in a serious way. No psychologically healthy person would do something like that. how sad though.
    :ditto:

    thats sick!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, that's shocking.

    She deserves to die and I'm glad she received the death penalty. There's no point giving her any help now after such a brutal murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meteorshower)
    I never said they were my points :p: Kitten and Galatea have made several similar posts to that (although i obviously agree)

    So even if someone killed purely because of their mental illness then they shouldn't be offered any help? (at the same time as being kept away from society obviously) Mental illnesses can effect anyone, and it is not the persons fault. It's entirely possible to help alleviate the effects of many mental illnesses to the point where in some cases they are negligible.

    Sure there's plenty undiscovered sufferers of severe mental illnesses out there but it's not like they wont be allowed into an institution because someone who has committed murder has. This is the same argument selkarn used, he created mutual exclusivity between two choices. That simply isn't the case.

    No, mistakes like that can't be rectified, you're right. But instead of condemning instantly these mistake makers to death (in a comepletly hypocritical manner) why not give them a second chance in life. A chance they might not even properly have had before the crime. People CAN change, even if it takes decades.
    As I have said before the question here isn’t just her alleged mental illness. This person, who also had other children, murdered this particular child in order to keep her boyfriend (as she confessed). Again a person’s mental state cannot excuse all actions on their part. It is possible to help alleviate mental illness, however, it may take many years of effort, time, and not to mention medical staff.


    It’s not about being allowed or not. It’s whether there is enough space. She would be taking the time, effort and space that can be given to another person. Institutions do not have limitless resources to provide to people, especially to individuals that cannot afford it. If this were the case then mental institutions would not be as required as they currently are.

    Again I have covered the second chance argument. It is extremely difficult to stop bad habits, let alone change one's way of thinking. It may happen, but those successes are documented because they are so rare. So why waste important resources on something that may not succeed. Whereas the death penalty solves the problem once and for all. I am condemning her to death as she condemned her own child to death in such a sickening manner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittten)
    It's just as well that no one is asking for sympathy for her then isn't it. All they are suggesting is that you consider the situation before baying for blood.

    Aid should be given to those who need it, this isn't some sick power game (...''I'll help you because it's fashionable to feel sorry for poor people, but you can die because you did something awful; even though you might not have been responsible for your actions at the time'').

    If she was deemed safe to be allowed back then she would be safe to be allowed back, that's exactly what they'd be checking for :rolleyes: Obviously it would be important for her to have regular check-ups, and if any sign of her 'reverting' showed up then she would be taken back to a secure hospital. If she was never deemed to be safe then she would spend the rest of her life in secure hospital, thus the public are safe, public morality is intact, money is saved, and she isn't unnecessarily killed. There is no reason to kill her except to make you feel better, and I feel vengeance has no place in justice.
    People were asking for sympathy before.

    I never claimed to play a sick power game. It seriously isn’t about what is fashionable or not as you may think, however, I do prioritise. I do not consider giving aid to a murderer (whether mentally stable or not) a priority. Like I previously said mental problems cannot excuse an individual from claiming responsibility of all their actions.

    I’ve already addressed the rehabilitation of criminal’s argument, so it is very unnecessary for you to use it again. Spending time and effort on regular check-ups, a most likely permanent place in a secure hospital and other necessities that she would require is also unnecessary.

    Do not think your morals are right and others are wrong. Vengeance is an important part of justice. Actions have consequences and negative actions require a form of retribution equal to the offence.

    Either way, it seems like the state where Arnold resides has chosen to be pro capital punishment. I’m done debating, as it is clearly going nowhere.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I literally just felt the blood drain from my face.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.