Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    i thought sentences run back to back in america, not concurrently
    Either.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by piemonster411)
    From the source:

    Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of Zoloft, said in a statement after the verdict: “Zoloft didn’t cause his problems, nor did the medication drive him to commit murder. On these two points, both Pfizer and the jury agree.”
    Pfizer is hardly reknowned for honesty in the face of bad press of its drugs and drug trials.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    indeed. its the only reason i didn't support him. if he had gunned down the guy as he was stalking around the house, then i would be a lot more sympathetic to his cause
    Absolutely. Always go for the head shot from the front; double tap to make sure.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Pfizer is hardly reknowned for honesty in the face of bad press of its drugs and drug trials.
    But Pfizer are irrelevent here. It's what the jury thought, not what pfizer thinks, that was relevent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    A South Carolina court has sentenced a boy who killed his grandparents when he was 12 years old to 30 years on each count to be served concurrently.

    He was on antidepressant drugs when the murder was committed and said the drugs drove him to killing his grandparents after he had an argument with them over another matter.

    Do you think he had mitigating circumstances?
    Do you consider a child of 12 who was being treated for a psychiatric condition at the time and was under the influence of drug treatment should have been found guilty of murder?
    Do you think 30 years imprisonment is a just sentence in the circumstances?
    What do you think of a court that would make a judgement like this?

    I think anyone at the age of 12 knows the difference between right or wrong, especially in attempting to destroy the crime scene. It doesn't really matter what we think of America's legal system; it's an American kid on trial in an American city and the rules comprising their jurisdiction apply. We're not on trial in Britain and our ridiculously liberal laws do not apply. Considering that anti-depressants are supposed to positively affect your behaviour (if they negatively affected your behaviour then why would anyone take them?) I seriously doubt the "under the influence" argument is particularly persuasive here. The court could also have imposed the death penalty yet chose not to. It will serve more as a deterrent to other young Americans in the area than our comparative 8 years and out after 3 for good behaviour. I know damn well that if I killed someone I wouldn't expect to be let out for a long time.

    Everyone (well, ill-informed Englishmen) always chide the Americans for being stupid but I really do think that we could learn a thing or two about law and order. Look at The Big Apple - 10-15 years ago it was a no man's land. Now thanks to zero tolerance and Rudolph Giuliani, ppl can safely walk there at night. It would appear that the inverse is happening to London.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    i thought sentences run back to back in america, not concurrently
    "Concurrently" *can* be confusing, since it implies "happening at the same time". I think what they mean is....if a person is sentenced to 30 years, he may be eligible for release in 20, which is the time his next 30 years would start.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Pfizer is hardly reknowned for honesty in the face of bad press of its drugs and drug trials.
    Maybe so, but the defense lawyer gave Pfizer and Zoloft a bad rap with these "Zoloft made him do it" charges.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by technik)
    really? why's that?

    has it been shown to be dangerous and cause people to go out and kill?

    The use of Prozac (a drug from the same 'family') has caused some consternation amongst the medical field that it can sometimes cause the reverse of what it is designed for - it has caused greater depression than the patient was suffering from before taking it. There have been cases of suicide amongst patients who were taking it so obviously it is not always alleviating the symptoms.

    Whether or not these types of drugs could be the 'cause' of someone killing another has not been established. But the fact that they can initiate severe depression might lead to all sorts of aggressive behaviour - including 'red rages'. Although we cannot say for certainty that the drug would induce someone to kill, we cannot say categorically that it wouldn't either!

    Pfizer said in court that Zoloft would not have caused the 12 year old boy to kill.

    "The safety and effectiveness of Zoloft in children below the age of 18 have not been establised" - observations of drug watchdog.

    If the safety (how the drug interacts) and the effectiveness(how good the drug is at alleviating syptoms for which it is prescribed) in children below the age of 18 (the boy was 12 i.e. below the age of 18) have not been established (they can't say, with any certainty what the drug will do):

    how then can Pfizer and their defence team say that Zoloft would not have caused the 12 year old boy to kill? And furthermore, how could a jury have agreed with their statement when it was not corroborated by evidence as the drug was not licensed for children because the safety and effectiveness had not been established?

    Very strange - is it the case that huge companies like Pfizer wield more power over the political and legal process than the 'people'?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Very strange - is it the case that huge companies like Pfizer wield more power over the political and legal process than the 'people'?
    How can that possibly be so when not everyone takes Prozac?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    you can shoot and kill to defend yourself if you have to. you cant shoot someone in the back when they are running away.

    these punks who broke in are a nuisanve, and from what i hear, they've been bugging him for a bit, along with otehr locals. I think mr Martin had a moment of severe anger. Imagine someone broke into your house again and again... and the police didn't do nothing...wouldn't you have a random outburst, in shear desparation? I'd probably have done the same - in a moment of madness... and i don't think people whould be jailed for that. So what if he was shot escaping. The point is that little brat shouldn't have been in there in the first place! tony is teh victim of a miscarriage of justice - or was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    wow..i read the scotsman everyday online and missed that article.

    there seems to be no evidence as to why he was tried as an adult, and surely he should be in phycriatric ward if thats his defence. was it a cold calculated murder, or a in the heat of the moment one? anyone know?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamieuk20)
    . Considering that anti-depressants are supposed to positively affect your behaviour (if they negatively affected your behaviour then why would anyone take them?)
    Isn't there a possibility that he accidentaly took an overdose of those anti-depressants, which could cause an unfavourable reaction?
    Because they tend to weaken your memory...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    on the other hand..

    Pittman burned the couple’s home and drove away in their car
    ..how can a 12year old that is under a strong influence of anti-depressants drive a car?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by jamieuk20)
    How can that possibly be so when not everyone takes Prozac?
    because they are a multibillion pound industry with unprecedented amounts of power...
    who said 'everyone' has to be on prozac..?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Pfizer said in court that Zoloft would not have caused the 12 year old boy to kill.

    "The safety and effectiveness of Zoloft in children below the age of 18 have not been establised" - observations of drug watchdog.

    If the safety (how the drug interacts) and the effectiveness(how good the drug is at alleviating syptoms for which it is prescribed) in children below the age of 18 (the boy was 12 i.e. below the age of 18) have not been established (they can't say, with any certainty what the drug will do):

    how then can Pfizer and their defence team say that Zoloft would not have caused the 12 year old boy to kill? And furthermore, how could a jury have agreed with their statement when it was not corroborated by evidence as the drug was not licensed for children because the safety and effectiveness had not been established?
    Thats a fair argument, but while its safety and and effectiveness has not been established, that doesnt necessarily preclude a judgement that Pfizer then made. They cannot determine how effective or safe it is, but may know that his consumption of such medication was not sufficient to motivate or influence murder.

    Very strange - is it the case that huge companies like Pfizer wield more power over the political and legal process than the 'people'?
    No. Unless you are suggesting that trial by jury is influenced by money. Pfizer saying it didnt kill him is not likely to hold much weight if the science points out that it did. Likewise, Pfizer cannot be found guilty or the medication blamed, if the evidence demonstrates that it would have not sufficiently effected his cognitive ability or it cannot be proven otherwise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)

    Very strange - is it the case that huge companies like Pfizer wield more power over the political and legal process than the 'people'?
    What are you wittering on about now? This case was decided by the people (the jury), not Pfizer. The jury found the boy guilty and having no doubt listened to expert witnesses that the drug did not have undue influence.

    It was a judicial decision of "12 men, honest and true" so don't try and make this a big corporation conspiracy theory or rubbish the US legal system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    because they are a multibillion pound industry with unprecedented amounts of power...
    who said 'everyone' has to be on prozac..?
    lol - yes, I found it difficult to follow his logic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    What are you wittering on about now? This case was decided by the people (the jury), not Pfizer. The jury found the boy guilty and having no doubt listened to expert witnesses that the drug did not have undue influence.

    It was a judicial decision of "12 men, honest and true" so don't try and make this a big corporation conspiracy theory or rubbish the US legal system.

    Don't judges in America sometimes direct juries as to how they should consider the evidence?

    They do here!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Don't judges in America sometimes direct juries as to how they should consider the evidence?

    They do here!
    Not generally ;that's the job of the respective party's attorneys.

    What are you saying; that Pfizer paid the judge to direct the jury? Give me a break and if you can't give me a break give me some evidence. Put up or shut up!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M-J)
    wow..i read the scotsman everyday online and missed that article.

    there seems to be no evidence as to why he was tried as an adult, and surely he should be in phycriatric ward if thats his defence. was it a cold calculated murder, or a in the heat of the moment one? anyone know?
    Well, considering he tried to strangle another student earlier in the day, and he tried to cover up the evidence of his crime by burning the house down and claiming he was kidnapped...I'm leaning toward the kid being calculating...
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.