How can any Mother do that?

[Blue]

In the midst of the Caylee Anthony story I keep thinking of Susan...How could she strap her kids in and watch the car roll into the lake? I mean they did that to women condemned as witches in the 1600's. Strap them to a chair, submerse them in water and if they floated they were witches and if they didn't they were not. Honestly if you could pick a way to die wouldn't that be the last (or close to it) way you would want to go? I figured burning or drowning would be my least favorite, as far as dying goes. It would be much less painful to be overdosed on tranquilizers, smothered or shot in the head.

Does the fact that I think it was a horrific way to die make me or you think she is insane?
maybe

If we think someone is insane should we forgive their actions?
many do

Where do we draw the line? Just because someone does something we would NEVER think of doing, if we can't fathom it, they must be insane right? There is a fine line between insane and evil, the line is so fine it's invisible. Only decided in our deepest thoughts. I know the law has specific ways to define sanity, but does insane equal sick? Then evil can't be sick just mean, or is evil just a deeper form of insanity? What if someone is an evil person before they go insane? How do you decide what to do with them? Can a jury or a doctor decide at what point this person became evil vs. when they became insane?

I guess my point is, is our need to rehabilitate someone who has killed, stronger than our need to protect the innocent?
Dying is not always the worst fate for an individual as long as it is done in a relatively painless way. I see no sense in allowing cold blooded murderers to exist in our world. Many think, let them live in prison so they can suffer. I don't think the end would justify the means, I say kill them and protect the innocent. Besides if they are THAT crazy they won't even understand they are going to die, just tell them they are going to have surgery, they will never know what happened. Trying to rehabilitate someone who could kill or harm the most innocent is like treating a 2 pound malignant tumor with radiation instead of surgery, a waste of time and money not to mention the risk of it spreading. I am sure if my child were on death row I would feel differently, but if they are suffering, putting them to death would relieve their pain, right? I say cut out the cancer to save the patient. Crazy? Crazy like a fox is more like it.

[shark]

In the midst of the Caylee Anthony story I keep thinking of Susan...How could she strap her kids in and watch the car roll into the lake? I mean they did that to women condemned as witches in the 1600's. Strap them to a chair, submerse them in water and if they floated they were witches and if they didn't they were not. Honestly if you could pick a way to die wouldn't that be the last (or close to it) way you would want to go? I figured burning or drowning would be my least favorite, as far as dying goes. It would be much less painful to be overdosed on tranquilizers, smothered or shot in the head.

Does the fact that I think it was a horrific way to die make me or you think she is insane?
maybe

If we think someone is insane should we forgive their actions?
many do

Where do we draw the line? Just because someone does something we would NEVER think of doing, if we can't fathom it, they must be insane right? There is a fine line between insane and evil, the line is so fine it's invisible. Only decided in our deepest thoughts. I know the law has specific ways to define sanity, but does insane equal sick? Then evil can't be sick just mean, or is evil just a deeper form of insanity? What if someone is an evil person before they go insane? How do you decide what to do with them? Can a jury or a doctor decide at what point this person became evil vs. when they became insane?

I guess my point is, is our need to rehabilitate someone who has killed, stronger than our need to protect the innocent?
Dying is not always the worst fate for an individual as long as it is done in a relatively painless way. I see no sense in allowing cold blooded murderers to exist in our world. Many think, let them live in prison so they can suffer. I don't think the end would justify the means, I say kill them and protect the innocent. Besides if they are THAT crazy they won't even understand they are going to die, just tell them they are going to have surgery, they will never know what happened. Trying to rehabilitate someone who could kill or harm the most innocent is like treating a 2 pound malignant tumor with radiation instead of surgery, a waste of time and money not to mention the risk of it spreading. I am sure if my child were on death row I would feel differently, but if they are suffering, putting them to death would relieve their pain, right? I say cut out the cancer to save the patient. Crazy? Crazy like a fox is more like it.

Ill comment in a few, I got to think on this SOB!!!

[shark]

Where do we draw the line? Just because someone does something we would NEVER think of doing, if we can't fathom it, they must be insane right? There is a fine line between insane and evil, the line is so fine it's invisible. Only decided in our deepest thoughts. I know the law has specific ways to define sanity, but does insane equal sick? Then evil can't be sick just mean, or is evil just a deeper form of insanity? What if someone is an evil person before they go insane? How do you decide what to do with them? Can a jury or a doctor decide at what point this person became evil vs. when they became insane?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I got to have bigger letters so I can see this myself...LOL!!!
Now, this is such a deep thought , and I went thru it with my dad, so I questioned it too.

The doctors first off are TEXT BOOK in forensic investigation as it was in my dads case.
They look at HX. of accused,both medical and psychological, and priors. Then they look at how they killed to determine if they were insane at the time of the crime.
Did they hear voices, or see anything that is not IN REALITY or illogical thinking.Did they premeditate the idea of?
What was going on prior to murder or killing.


Look at Manson, look at OJ...
2 different types of people the way they represent in killings.

1 denies
1 talks of being antichrist.

They {DOCTORS} also say look at how the person was killed... If a person is stabbed more than 10-15X's ,,,the accused must of been insane because it takes alot of hate and muscle to constantly stab someone...

Now me and my family said this is where ya got your medical jargon BS.
A doctor studies medicine and psychology and brings his knowledge to the table.
Doctors have been wrong , and this question of EVIL vs. INSANE is a line that is very very fine.

I believe each case needs to be examined and redetermined to understand each accused before we start handing out INSANES or EVILNESS....
PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INSANE, AND YA GOT **** HEAD DR.S WHO SVCK AND DEFENSE LAWYERS WHO JUMP THRU THE HOLES OF OUR LAWS.....

IT SVCKS, IT REALLY DOES....!!!!!




NOW THIS I WANT YA ALL TO SEE...IT IS A MOVIE CALLED 15 MINUTES STARRING ROBERT DINERO...
INSANE AT THE TIME OF KILLING?
LOOK HERE AND WATCH THE WHOLE THING AND YOU SEE HOW PEOPLE GET IDEAS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD6IkY_0KzE&feature=related

[Blue]

I understand the legal and psychological guidelines. It is difficult, to say the least, to determine whether someone was able to know wrong from right when they committed a crime. I guess the point i want to make is if they are SO crazy they don't know wrong from right, are we supposed to accept what they did and try to help them? Wrong from right..... insane or sane..... well, you could say anyone could be sane and filled with hate, as well as insane and filled with hate. Did susan smith hate her kids? Her case is very different from theresa cross, who killed two of her daughters. theresa seems more evil as well as insane because of the way she acted on a daily basis as well as how she killed her daughters. Theresa was sane enough to try to cover her tracks, but if you read her story you will undoubtedly come to the conclusion she must be insane. Susan was sane enough to try to pin it on any black man to save her ass. Manson is insane or a very good actor. Scott peterson was not insane, but if you had the choice which of those two men do you think should be put to death first? I know manson avoided the DP but just think about it.... I think the majority would choose manson first yet he is the one who acts insane and our judicial system is geared to trying to rehabilitate the insane instead of the evil. Forgive those with mental problems, why? Because we don't understand how they act? What about someone who is insane because of past drug use? Maybe manson is evil because he had too many bad acid trips? It is such a blurred line, sometimes I am not sure it really matters, I feel like the best for all is to "put down" the rabid dog before he infects others.

I guess my point is this... If we forgive the insane and give them a lighter sentence because they didn't really know what they were doing. Can someone who is insane AND evil be given the same rights? Evil isn't always visible by how the crime was committed. Yes each case has to be determined individually. Who was/is more evil or more insane? susan or theresa? manson or scott? Should we waste our time trying to figure it out or just delete the problems? The death penalty won't be a deterrent to someone who is insane. Is the death penalty meant to be a punishment or to protect society from harm? I don't think a quiet sleep induced death is a punishment otherwise we would not put our pets to sleep, which by the way is more painful than lethal injection. I don't support the dp to punish the guilty, I support it to remove the cancer from our society to protect our children. There are many fates worse than death.