Jury rules she was insane-NO SHIT

[LV426]

Mom who said she killed on God's orders acquitted
Jury rules she was insane when she bludgeoned her 3 children
Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:12 PM EST (0412 GMT)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/vert.mother.ap.jpg

Deanna Laney leaves the courtroom after closing arguments in her trial Saturday. In the background is an enlarged photo of her son Aaron.


(CNN) -- A jury acquitted a Texas mother of killing two of her sons and seriously injuring the third after determining she was insane at the time.

As the verdicts were read, Deanna Laney's face quivered, but the 39-year-old shed no tears.

Laney would have received an automatic life sentence had she been convicted of capital murder.

Instead, she will immediately be taken for evaluation to a maximum security state psychiatric hospital, where she could stay as long as 40 years.

Laney admitted bashing her three children in the heads with rocks. She said God told her to do so.

Laney was charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of 8-year-old Joshua and 6-year-old Luke, and a single count of injury to a child for 15-month old Aaron, who survived the attacks on Mother's Day 2003.

Prosecutor Matt Bingham has said Aaron's vision is impaired and he will never be able to live on his own.

Bingham chose not to seek the death penalty in the case.

"I don't think anybody in this room or anybody in that courtroom wasn't touched by the evidence in this case," the Smith County district attorney told reporters after the verdicts.

"For the rest of my life I'll remember Aaron, I'll remember Joshua, I'll remember Luke. I'll never forget what happened to them that day," he said.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/story.boys.ap.jpg
Aaron, left, Luke and Joshua Laney are shown in this undated family photograph.
Laney's court-appointed attorney, Buck Files, said he felt a sense of relief.

"We have believed as strongly as we could believe that our client was insane at the time of the events," Files said.

Files said in court that Laney believed God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.

"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files told the jury. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"





-----------------------------------------------------------
I want you to know what this woman said and did.

Dressed in white pajamas, Deanna Laney slipped out of bed without disturbing her husband of 18 years and headed down the hall to kill her children.

It was 11:30 p.m. on the Friday before Mother's Day last year, and God was speaking to the 39-year-old, devoutly religious housewife again.

The Lord told Laney the end was near, He was coming and she needed to kill her sons to prove her complete and unconditional faith in Him, Laney told a forensic psychiatrist in December.

"That feeling hit me. It's time. It's time," Laney says in a videotape of the interview.

She describes psychotic episodes, including delusions and hallucinations, she had for fours years. She describes using heavy rocks to end the lives of her sons Joshua, 8, and Luke, 6, and to severely injure 14-month-old Aaron.

"I thought I was being told by the Lord to do this. I believe that with all my heart," Laney told psychiatrist Park Dietz.

Laney told Dietz she believed she and Andrea Yates, another Texas woman who killed her children, were chosen by God to bear witness to the imminent end of the world. Likening herself to the Virgin Mary after learning from the Angel of the Lord that she would soon bear the son of God, Laney said she decided to "ponder" the delusional communication from God.

"I believed with all my heart it was the Lord telling me that, but I couldn't figure out why," Laney said. "I don't understand. Why? What purpose?"

Laney said she finally decided to use large rocks -- weighing from 3 to 14 pounds ? to commit the killings after she tripped over a rock while hallucinating in the front yard of her five-acre property in New Chapel Hill.

Laney said God was commanding that the boys be killed in increasingly violent ways because her resistance signified a lack of faith in Him.

"Each time it was getting worse and worse, the way it had to be done," she said, explaining that she decided rocks would be preferable to strangulation.

____________________ ____________________ ____________________




WTF?!?!?!?!

Why do we allow people like this to live? She's a fucking psychotic demon that slaughtered her own children. Screw her poor little dilemna about the end of the world and fry her ass. She should not be allowed to suck up tax dollars and governement funding because she is a completely insane. If she is insane then we don't need her, if she isn't insane she is still a monster and we don't need her. Why is there a question of kill or don't kill based on the contents of one's brain? Either way you are a disfunctional creature that needs to be put down.

[Xzengrim]

It's true!! What the hell is this?! I don't care WHY she did it, if you bash a child's skull in with a rock, you deserve to die!!! The fact that she's crazy somehow makes this less of a crime? And MY tax dollars are going to pay to house, clean, tutor, and feed this woman for the rest of her life! THAT'S a crime!! We punish this sort of thing because society can't afford to have these people running around acting like crazies all the time. The fact that they're some sort of mental defective does not assuage the fact that people like this are dangerous psychopaths, and should be killed. >mumblegrumble.... bash HER head in with a rock...<

[WhiteCrowUK]

Unbelievable!

I say this in all seriousness. I had a really bad time at work a while back, and kept having dreams (you might even call them "visions") about slaughtering some of my co-workers who I really dispise.

Anyway all the arseholes at work are still alive because I CHOSE to reject all this, because I know it to be wrong.

This woman likewise made a choice to kill - God is always telling us to give away our money, help others etc but we are always finding ways to ignore him if its inconvenient.

In fact one of the most hotly debated areas in the bible is where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his only son, Isaac to God, and he appears to go along with the idea. Was God testing to see how far Abraham would go? Or was Abraham just playing along to see how far God would go?

Anyway I guess just to make things worse, because of peoples reaction, this woman is likely to be given a new identity etc (at more cost) in case people try to hunt her down because they feel justice is not served ...

[Sorrowsong]

You know, I've always wondered whether God-devouted parents loved God more or their children more.

This answers my question.

[J.L.R.]

What gets me, is how many tax dollars was spent to figure out she was insane? I could have told you that! I agree with Lycan, they should zap this sicko person. It is funny to me that people seem to suddenly get crazy after they do something insanely stupid. She was smart enough to have children, she is smart enough to face the consequences of her actions... Grumble grumble grumble....

[blueeyes]

All the time and money was spent because, without a court battle, zapping her would have been nothing more than murder. That's why the judicial branch exists.
Now that she's been deemed insane by a bunch of people who have no idea what they're talking about, she'll be put in a rubber jar and never get out. If there's anything worse than death, I think mental institutions are close.
If you'd prefer her to have been sentenced to death, let's see the estimation for if the insanity plea wasn't so popular and her husband went for the death sentence. Saying she'd avoided a plea bargin, and if she was even mildly lucid her court-appointed would made her (by the way, with the required life sentence, plea bargins aren't feasible). In between the original court battle, and a few appeals that are standard for any such case, the final cost would be about three times that of a life-time prison sentence (according to a report from Texas, of all places, and they're the ones streamlining the process). Because of the lower numbers of guards and some pleasant agreements, a lifetime stay in a coat with non-optional extra-long sleeves is even cheaper.
So don't claim its for the economy and the penny on your paycheck. I'd just like her to be removed, the humane thing, as a matter of course; she killed two people and almost took the life of a third, not something I see as forgivable. Wouldn't have had a problem if she tried to resist a really jumpy cop, too. Nothing that could actually hurt the cop, of course.

[Cephas]

"Thou shalt know them by their fruits" or something like that.
That wasn't God she was hearing.

[WhiteCrowUK]

"Thou shalt know them by their fruits" or something like that.
That wasn't God she was hearing.

The Devil often walks around this place,
And when he does they say he wears Gods own face,
The only way to tell the two apart
Is to stare not with your eyes but with your heart!

[GoldShadowHunt]

I haven't really formed an opinion on whether or not I think she should die. :confused:
I do, however, think that she knew what she was doing. I do not think that temporary insanity should even BE a plea. :mad: I think that you should have to take responsibility for your actions no matter your state of mind. Because hey, if you're crazy, you're crazy, and you should still have a punishment equal to that of everyone else.
I think that killing a child, especially your own child, is one of the worst things that anyone can ever do. I really hope someone drives that point home to her. The very thought of the whole thing turns my stomach. Reason? My best friend killed her 7 week old son a year ago on the 24th of this month. I wept for days.
I don't really think it matters as to HOW you remove the pyschos from society, so long as it's done and done humanely, otherwise we become as horrible as them.

[Béni_Etre]

"Thou shall cast the first stone who has not committed a sin"

Who ever hasn't done anything wrong can punish those who do wrong but those who do wrong have no right to punish those who do wrong.

The moral of the story, kids, is that if you have done no wrong then punish those who do wrong you have done wrong. By punishing someone you also have wronged so you have no right to punish again or in the first place if that makes sense.

[Klark]

um....no.

Besides, isn't it....

Let he, who hath not commited sin, cast the first stone."

Somewhere in there, I lost IQ, I must now search for them. I don't really see where this has any thing to do with religion and it is religion since you say SIN. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must return to my life of SIN!

[kat]

"Thou shall cast the first stone who has not committed a sin"

Who ever hasn't done anything wrong can punish those who do wrong but those who do wrong have no right to punish those who do wrong.

The moral of the story, kids, is that if you have done no wrong then punish those who do wrong you have done wrong. By punishing someone you also have wronged so you have no right to punish again or in the first place if that makes sense. So you would have a world of anarchy? Way to think out your opinions!

[Béni_Etre]

to Klark:

it varies depending on your bible thank you very much.

[Béni_Etre]

Kat:

How did I suggest anarchy may I ask?

[Klark]

to Klark:

it varies depending on your bible thank you very much.

Well...that ain't cool. Doesn't that go against the rule in the bible that nothing will be changed, edited, left out or added to the scripture?

*this is the last post about religious stuff in this thread as this discussion now belongs in Religion*

[kat]

Kat:

How did I suggest anarchy may I ask?
Without regulations or punishment, you have anarchy, Beni.

[Ves]

I'm not certain, but I think Beni was trying to say something along the lines of "Eye for an eye isn't necessarily justice" or something along those lines.

Personally I say let her live (actually I don't support the death sentence for anyone but that's another debate). This woman has killed her children, apparently because of insanity. Let her rot in an asylum, and every time she has a moment of lucidity for the rest of her life, and she will have moments, she will remember what she has done. If they execute her, then it's lights out and that's it. OK there may be some afterlife in which she pays further for her crime, but she'll get to that in the end anyway.
Let her rot, don't give her the easy way out.

[kat]

No thanks. I'm tired of having to pay for all these degenerates to live. If I don't get to sit on my ass, not to anything, and have food/clothing/shelter handed to me, then they shouldn't either.

[LV426]

Not to mention the happy expensive medication she will be given to keep her from bashing the orderlies in the head with rocks everytime god speaks to her. Sorry she has become a non-productive member of society and a threat to society and should therefore be removed from society completely so as not to burden the rest of society. Yes I am a selfish person, but I work hard for every penny that I earn and I don't feel like supporting psychopathic hallucinatory fucktards that bash people in the head because god told them to.

And Beni, this isn't religion because I don't think god spoke to her, but if you believe that god told her to bash her kids in the head with rocks you are more than welcome to quote scripture in your own thread in religion. Other than that, any further posting of religious scripture in this forum will be deleted. Consider it separation of church and state!

[WhiteCrowUK]

What she did was monsterous - actually the only word I can come up with is "truely evil".

She should be put down in the same way you'd put down a rabid dog.

[blueeyes]

Nice to know I'm on LH's ignore list... did you read the long, ugly post?
If she didn't have the plea bargin, it would cost us more, and that's more pennies of you and my paycheck, even with the cost of the 'happy drugs'.

[Béni_Etre]

I'm not certain, but I think Beni was trying to say something along the lines of "Eye for an eye isn't necessarily justice" or something along those lines.

Yes I was trying to say something along those lines. Never did I try to suggest anarchy. I would want there to be justice. If you haven't done wrong do you have the right to punish those who have? And if you have done wrong do you even still really have the right to punish those who also do wrong?

At first you may have neve wronged but after you punish someone then you aren't innocent anymore correct? So you can't exactly punish anymore without it being considered a sin. Right?

P.S. Please don't call me Beni. I am not a guy. My names Cayla f all must know. Thank you! :)

[LV426]

So those of us who don't commit murder can't send a person to be punished by others who have not committed murder and so we are supposed to let this person go unpunished because none of us has commmitted murder?
What kind of logic is that shit?

[Wolf-Bone]

I don't think they're saying they shouldn't be punished, just that they shouldn't be punished by death.

Also, I just love the argument it always comes down to: "well dag nabbit, I don't wawnt MAH tax dollas being wasted on blah blah blah".

Listen, there's plenty of people I think "society would be better off without". I know many of them personally. I used to call them my friends. None of them ever killed, though many did commit crimes at some point in their lives. Hell, I was no better than them. We all got drunk, high, fucked up. Now I never stooped as low as going on welfare like they did, but I wasn't contributing nothing to society. I'm still not, really, though I'm trying to turn that around. But yeah, maybe the world would be better without guys like us/them, but I'm not going to kill them, or advocate it. Because I was brought up to believe killing is wrong, no matter who does it, and that other than self preservation nothing justifies it (and you can't argue that "threat to society" schtick if they're locked up and the key's been thrown away. Unless you selectively care about the other inmates they could potentially harm). Believe me, I hate the fact that in my current situation I have to settle for seasonal work, part time hours, for $6.85 an hour (CANADIAN dollars, btw), and on top of that knowing the taxes that get taken from each pay cheque go to all forms of trash. From the alcoholic, gambling addicted welfare bums, to the armed robbers and murders doing time. But you know what? TOUGH. Killing people because they were a threat has never done any society any real good.

Also, did any of you know the victims personally? While I agree that acts like these are horrible beyond all imagination regardless of the perpetrator's mental state at the time, it always disturbs me how much emotional stock people invest in the plight of those who have no personal bearing on their lives. It's a little unhealthy, frankly. Which I guess is why it especially disturbs me when people try to measure the net-worth of an individual, as if it was much of a cover up for the fact they really only desire one thing: revenge. The very reason some of those we call perpetrators kill in the first place.

I don't think many rationale people honestly believe they're receiving a noteworthy tax break because one nut-job gets axed.

[Fuzzy]

If you become a danger to society, you should be killed. Whether you are mentally handicapped or insane your actions, not your mental prowess, should decide your fate.

[TalaTsume]

if she were really into christianity like i used to be, she would have been reminded of Abraham. God told him to kill his son to prove his loyalty, but juat as he was about to kill him, God told him to stop and that he was indeed loyal.

[Béni_Etre]

Well sure you can punish someone. But once you punish someone, especially by death, then what?

If we go on the path of me punishing you then him punishing me because I punished you, then its going to turn into this big punishing cycle. And who, in that case, would be the innocent wiser? In the end no one.

[Wolf-Bone]

Well sure you can punish someone. But once you punish someone, especially by death, then what?

If we go on the path of me punishing you then him punishing me because I punished you, then its going to turn into this big punishing cycle. And who, in that case, would be the innocent wiser? In the end no one.

The idea behind criminal and tort law is that something is a crime because it is detrimental to an individual or society. A wrong has been committed. And by a third party administering punishment (the government), that wrong has been righted to whatever degree it can.

I understand the two wrongs don't make a right idea. But law, in dealing with those who break it, is not supposed to do a wrong in return, merely to bring things back to being right to as high a degree as possible.

Like you, I am against the death penalty. However, there are better ways to argue against it. For example, one can argue that the government does not steal from those who steal, or rape those who rape, because that would be reacting to crime with crime. So to kill someone because they killed does not serve the purpose of law, rather only slightly satisfies a desire for revenge. Indeed, it may be embedded in our conscience to want to steal from theives, rape rapists, and kill killers, but as law serves to prevent us from doing so, it should prevent itself as well.

Another point one could make is that unlike a wrongful prison term, where the person can be released and compensated to a certain degree for their losses, there's no way to correct a wrongful execution, which is known to have happened throughout western society (executions of wrongfully convicted people had a lot to do with Canada and the U.K's abolition of capital punishment). And with pretty recent discoveries that a few U.S death row inmates were wrongfully convicted, it's pretty clear the law is still not flawless.

[drkwlf]

i for one believe in the eye for an eye theory but with the new dna testing being done and finding out such and such person didnt do the crime but spent fourteen years in prison because some lawyer got them senteniced what are we as decent people to do if they come to a new place of employment looking for job and finding out that gee you was in prison, hm nope dont need ya i know some one right now that is prisonfor the death of his child and i personally think his wife did it but because there was no evidance to say which did it they both was sent to prison he is a fair person but for him or anyone to find a job after spending time in prison let alone a nuthouse is hard that stigma follows a person everywhere for the rest of their lives.and as far as religin is concerned i'll follow my heart not some one else's belief's

[McKitty]

The woman should have been treated like you would treat a sick and insane animal: Put down.

Either way, if she was or was not insane, the verdict would be that she was guilty of killing her OWN flesh and blood and therefore, she threw away her own life and should be killed.

Unfortunately in America, once you're placed on Death Row it could be from 1 to 15 years and more until you see that final day. That's wasting my money. Once you're proven guilty beyond a doubt (and with the new Forensics, this is becoming very, very accurate) and then you're slated a death date. It's cruel but they were the one who decided to commit a crime worthy of a death sentence.

[Wolf-Bone]

The woman should have been treated like you would treat a sick and insane animal: Put down.....they were the one who decided to commit a crime.

This is flawed on so many levels I can hardly decide where to begin.

For one, we're supposed to be the species that's more evolved than animals. What you're saying here could be taken to mean a variety of things: You're either saying that we're really no different than other animals and should treat and be treated as such, which is contradictory if you care a lick about things like laws and morals. You could also be saying that people who are insane are less human, or more specifically, people who commit crimes while mentally impaired are less human. Even if this were the case, it is still inconsistent because we insitutionalize and segregate both of these kinds of people, unless they kill. Yet killing is intertwined into our most base nature, so if someone kills while they are insane, they are still being human.

But then you state that they deserve to die because they made a conscious decision, which again, doesn't fly if the person is insane. Their thought patterns are not like yours or mine, only the actions they take in response to them. You or I would both kill (failing that, would be killed) if our similar thought patterns told us to do so.

In any event, comparing a specific species to no species of lower animal in particular just doesn't work, and doesn't provide a solid argument. It merely expresses a base lust for revenge, which is natural, but that is why we have laws in the first place. If you think about it, this whole system is one grand scale attempt at rehabilitation of the species, and for the insane, they need it tenfold. Hence asylum.

And if I'm wrong in that, then so is the concept of a human species as we take pride in it. But if that's so, you're still wrong, for obvious reasons.

[chriz]

But then you state that they deserve to die because they made a conscious decision, which again, doesn't fly if the person is insane. Their thought patterns are not like yours or mine, only the actions they take in response to them. You or I would both kill (failing that, would be killed) if our similar thought patterns told us to do so.

We all act based on our thought patterns. It's not an either-or situation. If an insane person isn't responsible for his actions because he's "slave" to his thought patterns, then no one can be held responsible for one's actions.

Slippery slopes are countered by lines in the sand. Those lines are almost always arbitrary, but they're essential if we want a practical and functioning society. It's pointless to argue the morality of an arbitrary threshold. A system puts murderers to death because it needs to in order to continue functioning.

[Wolf-Bone]

We all act based on our thought patterns.

Yes, but when someone is insane, the parts of their thought patterns that would inhibit you or I from killing under normal circumstances are not there. Someone killing somebody in the process of an armed robbery and someone killing someone because they're insane and because of that truly don't know the difference between right and wrong are not the same thing.

You don't punish people for things they cannot control.


A system puts murderers to death because it needs to in order to continue functioning.

That is ridiculous. At the rate of maybe a handful a year, if that, out of how many convicted murders, sane and otherwise? That's just ridiculous. I can't believe you'd even try that one.

[chriz]

Yes, but when someone is insane, the parts of their thought patterns that would inhibit you or I from killing under normal circumstances are not there. Someone killing somebody in the process of an armed robbery and someone killing someone because they're insane and because of that truly don't know the difference between right and wrong are not the same thing.

So what are normal circumstances? If I'm starving and rob you and end up killing you in the process, are those normal circumstances? If any circumstance leads me to conclude that I must kill you, would you consider that to be a normal circumstance?

Again, you insist on painting it as either-or. It's not.

That is ridiculous. At the rate of maybe a handful a year, if that, out of how many convicted murders, sane and otherwise? That's just ridiculous. I can't believe you'd even try that one.

Then explain why people vote to keep in the death penalty in the states that they do.

[Wolf-Bone]

So what are normal circumstances? If I'm starving and rob you and end up killing you in the process, are those normal circumstances? If any circumstance leads me to conclude that I must kill you, would you consider that to be a normal circumstance?

Again, you insist on painting it as either-or. It's not.

More like you insist on completely disregarding the difference between killing because you're broke as shit, and killing because you have a mental illness and can't control yourself. It is either-or. Either you're insane, or you're not.



Then explain why people vote to keep in the death penalty in the states that they do.

Sorry, I'm not falling for red herrings this time around. That's an entire other can of worms right there and bears little if any relevence to the topic of people avoiding capital punishment due to insanity.

[McKitty]

You don't punish people for things they cannot control..
Oh, so she should go free for killing her two children and maiming the third? If we didn't 'punish' those who 'did no wrong' because they're mentally insane then the streets would be tens times more dangerous.

Granted, I'll give you that my opinion was a bit extreme but you took it wrong.

For one, we're supposed to be the species that's more evolved than animals. What you're saying here could be taken to mean a variety of things: You're either saying that we're really no different than other animals and should treat and be treated as such, which is contradictory if you care a lick about things like laws and morals. You could also be saying that people who are insane are less human, or more specifically, people who commit crimes while mentally impaired are less human. Even if this were the case, it is still inconsistent because we insitutionalize and segregate both of these kinds of people, unless they kill. Yet killing is intertwined into our most base nature, so if someone kills while they are insane, they are still being human.
I did not even SUGGEST that she was less then human, I was using a reference. I was saying that she should be placed on the death penatly (in my opinion "being put down" after all, what ARE we doing to the death row inmates? We're putting them down."

And insane or not, they killed. Are you saying we should forgive and forget just because Suzie saw so-and-so as the devil and killed so-and-so because of it.

"Either way, if she was or was not insane, the verdict would be that she was guilty of killing her OWN flesh and blood and therefore, she threw away her own life and should be killed."

That is what I was refering to. Yes, I used an example of putting down an animal. But in no way was I refering to her being less then you or me.

However, she took a life in a brutal and horrible way, does she NOT deserve to forfeit her own life because of that?

[Wolf-Bone]

Oh, so she should go free for killing her two children and maiming the third? If we didn't 'punish' those who 'did no wrong' because they're mentally insane then the streets would be tens times more dangerous.

Read-my-God-damned-posts. I said the insane should be institutionalized. Putting an insane person in an asylum isn't punishment. It would sure be one hell of a punishment to you or I, but we're not insane.


I did not even SUGGEST that she was less then human, I was using a reference. I was saying that she should be placed on the death penatly (in my opinion "being put down" after all, what ARE we doing to the death row inmates? We're putting them down."

No, a reference is when you include a source to back up your argument. What you did there was make a comparison. In this case, you made a comparison between a human being mentally ill and being executed (punished) for it, and an animal being put down for for whatever reason, which may be to end it's suffering or because it has gone rabid, but really can't be called a punishment. And you do it yet again, right here. What you don't even realize (among other things) is that you're criss-crossing the differences between the two even as you say you know very well they're two entirely different things.


And insane or not, they killed.

Not always, at least not when things work as they should. Just as there are those who plea insanity when they were sane when the crime was committed and "get off on it(if you consider spending possibly the rest of your life in an asylum when you're sane "getting off")", there are those on death row who should be in rehabilitation out of any hope that their minds may make their way back to our world.

It also disturbs me that you speak as if the status quo is unquestionable. That because something is, it should always be, even in a species flawed and dented enough to have crime, hatred, bloodlust and insanity in the first place.


Are you saying we should forgive and forget just because Suzie saw so-and-so as the devil and killed so-and-so because of it.

In the case of insanity, it is not about forgiveness. To be found insane is not a pardon. You can't be pardoned from having an illness. Cured, perhaps, some day.



"Either way, if she was or was not insane, the verdict would be that she was guilty of killing her OWN flesh and blood and therefore, she threw away her own life and should be killed."

That is what I was refering to. Yes, I used an example of putting down an animal. But in no way was I refering to her being less then you or me.

But the reference doesn't even fit. The quote you refer to argues that there is essentially no difference between a sane and insane human killer. The argument you make suggests that a killer of any mental state is no different than an animal who is sick. Unless you're suggesting that animals and humans are mental equals, which itself is erroneous, then I'm at a loss as to how you fail to comprehend the implications of your own words.

In any event, this is yet another thread I'm electing to bow out of as I've argued my point sufficiently enough, I think. Any more on my part would just be redundant, and besides, I've met one eyed bats that weren't as blind as the people I've been arguing with lately.

[Hagakure]

So basically, I could come to each and every one of your houses and kill you, and say God told me to do it. Kick ass..I mean.. Wonderful idea, God.

[DarknessBloodbane]

I can say this much...I would have LOVED to be a fly on the wall in that Jury room.

[sabrewulf9]

Welcome to the influence of the Liberal view of the world. They feel that this woman shouldn't be punished because she was not in her right mind and be helped. That it was not her fault. She cannot be held accountable for her actions. The world made her that way. No one should be accountable for their actions. Some outside influence made them do it.

That is why I am proud to say that I'm not one. :mad:

[Buddha Monkey]

I know in the state of Florida, you must prove that at the time of a crime, you did not know the differnce between "right and wrong".

And, I'm sorry, if you say "God told me to do this", you belived you were doing right, therefore know the differnce between right and wrong. Even if that person see's Right and Wrong differnt.

Yes, I belive in killing in certain instances. Some one rape's/kill's a friend of mine, I will kill them. I also expect to do the time for it, even if at the time MY mental illnesses take over (Rage disorder, Fugue).

[McKitty]

Welcome to the influence of the Liberal view of the world. They feel that this woman shouldn't be punished because she was not in her right mind and be helped. That it was not her fault. She cannot be held accountable for her actions. The world made her that way. No one should be accountable for their actions. Some outside influence made them do it.

That is why I am proud to say that I'm not one. :mad:
Oh, I'm a Liberal as well :) But then again, I've lived in the real world, I've interned at Western State Mental Institution and base my OPINIONS (read: Opinions, you bloody left-wingers) on what I've been/seen through.

And yes, I do feel that someone with a violent mental problem should be removed. Get over it. My Opinion. Tough luck you dumb ass.

((Not you Sabrawulf, but my devil's advocate who wasn't really playing the devils advocate but bitching at someone else because HEVEAN forbid someone not think the way they do))

[Wraywolf]

Welcome to the influence of the Liberal view of the world. They feel that this woman shouldn't be punished because she was not in her right mind and be helped. That it was not her fault. She cannot be held accountable for her actions. The world made her that way. No one should be accountable for their actions. Some outside influence made them do it.

That is why I am proud to say that I'm not one. :mad: Give me an H-Y-P

Welcome to the influence of the Liberal view of the world.
O-C-R
They feel that this woman shouldn't be punished because she was not in her right mind and be helped I-T-E!
Some outside influence made them do it.
What's that spell?!

[Arthurus Rex]

Hmm.. I consider myself to be a liberal and frankly I'd like nothing more than to see them put a bullet right between that woman's eyes. She viciously ended the lives of her 2 young sons for no other reasons than that she couldn't control the voices in her head. Regardless of whether or not "God" told her to do this or not, She still violated man's law, and thus she should be punished accordingly. If she'd been in Texas, this would have been a non-issue because they would have booted that sick b**ch right to the front of the line and pumped a few thousand amps through her sick and twisted mind.