3 Babies Killed - Only 8 years...

Remove all ads!

As I am neither a father nor a woman who can bare children I will respect others in making any judgements that may offend:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8108317.stm

Does it suprise many that she was only given 8 years after proving that it was murder and not a result of "Pregnancy Denial"?

 

That's awful. I suffered from post natel depression and couldn't bond at all with my son after he was born but I couldn't have killed him. The woman clearly needs psychiatric help but she also needs to be locked up for a long time.

 

Apparently its quite common for a judge in France to dismiss a killing, accidental death or physical abuse of a baby if the mother says she suffers from this ting they call "Pregnancy Denial", I dont think they ever heard of post natel depression as if it was some sort of urban myth or somthing.

 

Yuck. Isn't the daily news a great start of the day? I wonder if even one of the millions of normal, functional families will ever get any attention, if only to put things in perspective. When it comes to news, we humans seem to be a bunch of thrillseekers looking for blood and guts. Little has changed since the times of the roman arenas.

8 years may seem a bit light, but if you think about it: Murdering your own newborn children is a very self-destructive act, so if you're that messed up, nature is already punishing you. The freezer and fireplace details just add to the theatrics.
The woman definitely needs psychiatric attention, and good long incarceration, of that I'm sure we are all agreed.

 

I second coin's comment -- yuck. What a disgusting situation. She must have severe problems, ones that I hope get addressed during her long, long incarceration.

 

Like LDK, I second Coin's analysis. This woman needs real mental help, and I can only hope she gets it.

As for french law, that kind of thing doesn't surprise me any more. I've heard some truely bizzare law stories from France.

 

Really can't see how she got any prison at all. The woman is clearly very insane and should be locked up for treatment and possibly sterilization.

 

Compulsory sterilisation....now that's a thread we should start seperatly

 

I put in the "possibly" there as it is a very tender subject and something that has been abused horrendously in the past. Chemical castration is used on pedophiles here in Sweden although the process is semi-voluntary. Shouldn't be hard to convince this woman to cut the tubes to avoid this ever happening again.

 

It also suprised me that once she came forward and admitted the killing she claimed that it was done due to Pregnancy Denial, at this point it was NOT required to have the woman psyco analyised by a doctor for any mental issues, apparently it was a "classic" case as stated by her lawyers until finally a psychiatrist stated the absolute opposite, which was probably a bigger shock to the French legal system then anything previsouly brought up in the case...

What if somone went to work and shot everyone and claimed they were in "Career Denial"? HMm thats a thought and a half...I'm gonna move to France!

 

To me it matters very little if the murderer claims to be "insane" -- aren't all murderers, by definition, insane? My belief is the murderer should simply never be allowed to murder again -- life imprisonment or death penalty, I don't really care which.

Eight years is a mockery.

 

T2 I have deep disagreements with you about some things (ie: abortion) but on this topic we are in harmony. I don't give a damn about "mental illness" defenses that are often only smokescreens that are used to avoid rightful punishment.

But even if there is a mental condition, under no circumstances should a murderer ever have anything close to the opportunity to take another life. If a society doesn't have the guts to kill these people, then at the very least lock them away for life with no possibility of release. If the location of the lockup is a mental hospital where certain types of people can feel all warm and fuzzy about the "help" the criminal is getting, fine -- just keep them away from decent society.

 

It isn't about guts, LKD. I'm not against the death penalty because I don't have the guts, because I consider it cruel or unusual (it is neither), or because it is "legalized vengeance" (whatever that means). I'm against the death penalty because you can't un-kill a wrongfully convicted dead man. In most cases of murder, I agree that life imprisonment without parole is the way to go, but I think we can all come up with at least a few isolated instances that we feel might deserve a lesser sentence (although this clearly isn't one of them).

 

I find the wrath against the mentally disturbed here to be truely disturbing. To answer T2, no, not all murderers are insane. In fact, the vast majority of them are perfectly sane. They chose to do wrong because they just didn't give a **** any more, or maybe never did in the first place. Someone who is truely insane is someone who flat out doesn't know they were doing something wrong. They thought the person they just murdered was actually a squirrel, or a zombie raised from the dead to eat their flesh.

This is the kind of thing you're really talking about when you talk about mental insanity. Sure, there are much more mundane cases than that, but a complete psychotic break from reality (mmm, this chair is a tasty cheesburger) is probably the most common form of criminal insanity.

The interesting thing that most people don't realize is that insanity is NOT a psychological term, but rather a legal one. Psychology does not have a clinical definition for "insane". Instead, they have a whole slew of conditions ranging from simple depression or phobias to full-blown paranoid schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. Whether a person is insane or not depends entirely on how that disorder impacts their sense of right and wrong. Schizophrenics, for example, typically have no idea that they just did something wrong. They think what they did is fully justifiable and, in their world, it is. If you saw things the way they did, you'd agree with them. Unfortunately, the way they see things and the way reality works aren't quite in mesh any more. This can be fixed with medications (not very nice ones, but they bring you back to reality) and, provided they continue on the medications for the rest of their lives, they can lead pretty normal, productive, and safe lives. They're no more likely to commit a crime than you, LKD; and probably far less likely due to the effects of their medications. Yet you suggest execution or complete social isolation for the remainder of their natural lives?

The one condition where I would even entertain such an idea is in personality disorders, as they really aren't treatable. On many levels, they aren't even managable, and someone with a personality disorder that's shown a prediliction for criminal activity is very likely to re-offend. Antisocial personality disorder, for example, looks pretty rare in the normal world, but is quite common in the prison system. If you don't know what that condition is, I urge you to look it up.

 

If she was found to be insane, though - and I am pretty sure that an expertise was requested in this case - shouldn't she be sent to an asylum rather than jail? I mean... killing several of your own children, what kind of a lunatic would do that, anyway? I could understand abortion, but after she already gave birth to them, why on Earth would she? If she didn't want them, she could just leave them on the front door of a church, clinic, or heck, any door!

You know, come to think of it maybe there is little difference between the two. Perhaps an asylum has nicer living conditions and staff (though maybe not that much nicer) but both, effectively, remove you from society because you have been judged to not be able to coexist safely with others. If madness is an attenuating circumstance for a crime, being confined to an asylum would be oddly fitting. I am not sure how much a stay there will change that woman, and to be honest I'm not sure if she should have other children. The thing is, though, who am I to judge if another person is qualified to have children? Moral outrage aside (and what she did was outrageous) how do we know if she eventually matures to the point where she can be a good mother?

One more thing - the article said that Mrs. Prejean already spent 3 years in prison during pre-trial. Is that in addition to the 8 years she was sentenced to, or does she only have to spend 5 more?

 

Not necessarily true NOG. A psychopath is insane. A sociopath is insane. The broad definition of insanity is a mental condition which prevents rational thought. Whether this mental condition is encouraging violence or preventing the realization that murder is wrong is immaterial in broad scope; they are all insane. The definition of insane by most courts (i.e., the person didn't know what they were doing was wrong) is arbitrary and, in my opinion, unnecessary. Murderers should simply not be permitted to be in a position where they can harm others again.

 

I find the verdict to be a matter of sexism. No man would get such a light sentence under any circumstances (insane or not).

 

T2, a man who just get's pissed at someone for sleeping with his girlfriend and knifes the guy outside a bar isn't insane. The guy who shot the abortion doctor wasn't insane. The homeless man who stabs a jogger because she was "broadcasting my location to the mothership" is insane.

The definition is a little fluid and subjective, yes, but it's not really arbitrary; at least, not here in the US. Different countries may have different definitions and standards of course.

At the same time, there is a certain truth that there is a killer in all of us, that there are things that will drive almost anyone (if not anyone at all) to kill. Whether that be considered murder or manslaughter or justifiable homicide is up to legal definitions, but the fact of the psychological condition of the individual is not likely very different (outside of those suffering from mental disorders).

 

NOG, both the guy who flies off in a jealous rage and the guy who killed the abortion doctor could mount an insanity defense -- and possible win dependent on the skill of the attorney. Insanity can be "temporary" and someone who plans an attack can be insane.

Personally, I don't care if the murderer is a jilted lover, crazed fanatic, or trying to defend the earth from invasion -- I don't want any of them back on the street.

 

And how about the man who's trying to protect his daughter, who was recently raped durring a home invasion, and shoots a couple of raucous teens cutting through his yard late at night? Most courts would, at the least, find him guilty of manslaughter, with mitigating factors, but he's not exactly likely to go on a killing spree. Do you think he should forever be seperated from society?