The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
A baby who was cut from her mother's womb has been found alive two days after the woman's body was discovered, US police have said.
A woman who had the baby with her when found in New Hampshire was charged with being a fugitive from justice.
The girl was said to be in "fairly good health," according to Worcester police Sergeant Kerry Hazelhurst.
The body of her mother, Darlene Haynes, 23, was found in her apartment on Monday, apparently killed days before.
Police named the arrested woman as Julie Corey, 35, described as an acquaintance of Ms Haynes.
She was arrested at a shelter in Plymouth, New Hampshire, after staff became suspicious of her and notified police.
She had told staff she was the mother of the six-day-old baby, the Union Leader newspaper reported.
A male companion with her at the time was questioned by police, but was later released.
Darlene Haynes' body was found in her apartment in Massachusetts on Monday after her landlord noticed a "horrifying smell".
A post-mortem examination revealed that her foetus was missing, and that she had head injuries, but the exact cause of death has yet to be determined.
Toxicology tests were being carried out, Worcester Police Detective Captain Edward McGinn Jr said.
The last known contact anyone had with Ms Haynes was a week ago when she sent a text message to a friend saying she was having drinks with a friend in her apartment.
Ms Haynes had three other girls - aged 5, 3 and 18 months.
It is not the first such case in the US.
Lisa Montgomery was convicted two years ago of murdering Bobbi Jo Stinnett, whose foetus she removed. The baby girl survived.
This has happened quite a few times over recent years. It's horrible and on similar occasions both mother and baby have died which has been a double loss for the family left behind. If it was in the UK our justice system would let her claim she is nuts and do community service prolly around newborn babies Luckily it's in the US and in a previous case the woman got the death penalty I think.
I don't believe in pure evil in people, although there are people who do things which definitely appear evil.
I think theres a limit to what sort of evil acts normal people can do, beyond a certain point you have to consider no mentally normal person would do under normal conditions, and so have to consider they are either insane or mentally challenged in some way like psychopaths who have absolutely no understanding of the concept of the effect of their actions on other peoples feelings.
As punishment is there as a deterrent and not revenge, these people clearly arnt capable of thinking of the consequences and so its rather ineffective, nevertheless i feel they should be put out of their misery.
I don't believe in pure evil in people, although there are people who do things which definitely appear evil.
If it appears to be evil, reads like evil and has evil effects - what else can it be but evil ? The word evil translates almost completely the same in every culture. Why do we wish to interpret it differently ? No excuses, put them down like we would a vicious dog and save the tax payer a fortune.
If it appears to be evil, reads like evil and has evil effects - what else can it be but evil ? The word evil translates almost completely the same in every culture. Why do we wish to interpret it differently ? No excuses, put them down like we would a vicious dog and save the tax payer a fortune.
if an act appears evil then i agree it is evil. but evil in a person - that sounds like your talking about the religious side of evil, ie possessed by Satan, which is universally translated as such.
people do things for a reason :- the whole human mind is driven by motivation, only when things go wrong with the mind do people act otherwise.
if someone is motivated to do an evil act then you have to wonder why, unless you just don't give a dam.
in addition we have self controls which stop us from doing certain things, these can also go wrong, however self controls need to be taught to us as children, so again if these have gone wrong you have to wonder why.
my point is this type of person is so obviously wrong in the head some way or another.
if you think we should put people down because they arnt right in the head,,, well i could think of a few people,,,
this doesn't mean we shouldn't do every measure to protect ourselves from these people.
one of my my hobby horses if you haven't guessed by now is that there have been truly amazing advances in mental health but these arnt being well applied.
if the best treatment was applied correctly where and when its necessary a lot of these things "evil" things could be prevented before they happen.
I find it medieval and stupid that people simply dismiss this opportunity to save both the victims in this case by saying its a soft touch or whatever.
[quote=meow;703592] if the best treatment was applied correctly where and when its necessary a lot of these things "evil" things could be prevented before they happen. /QUOTE]
We don't know where and when the best treatment is necessary for these evil acts of human behaviour so they are impossible to prevent. It's our moral duty to protect those who are most vulnerable. Sadly It was too late in this case. There's nothing religious about my view, just simple pragmatism.
Think about what the Nazis / Idi Amin / Pol Pot and their ordinary followers did to innocent people, they were not classified as mad, just evil and executed according to the law of the day.
I'm seriously shocked reading that news post. I can see why people are discussing it, but surely nobody in their right mind could ever conceivably accept that at any point ever, any kind of action of this nature is acceptable, which thankfully nobody on here has evenb attempted to post agreeing with her actions.
Like Meow, I don't actually believe it is some kind of evil, it is simply nothing more than the actions of someone who is conditioned to somehow believe that their actions are not wrong. Evil states that some kind of higher power is instructing the actions, the truth is simply that some people don't have the morality that most people have, some people don't have the naturally developed point, where the brain says, no, don't do that. It's sad that people with such clear mental problems are not caught by the system and put somewhere safe where they can be helped and where normal people are safe from them.
It's sad that people with such clear mental problems are not caught by the system and put somewhere safe where they can be helped and where normal people are safe from them.
It's just because the fact that these overly sickening mental problems normally tend to come in others knowledge through the sad events like this in the original post. I've watched an american TV-series that are biographies of the most infamous mass murderers in the world and most of them lived a life that at least appeared normal life. Also many of them had somewhat sad/bad childhood. Seems to me that their childhood was some kind of assembling a time-bomb with an unknown time to its detonation.
Then to genetics as some mental illnesses seem to 'go with the family'. The funny thing in the genes that causes mental illnesses is that they don't necessarily activate without environmental pressure. So, you can have perfectly normal life even you carry the gene that causes some mental illness and on the other hand you will get the illness if your (stressful) environment activates it.
I It's sad that people with such clear mental problems are not caught by the system and put somewhere safe where they can be helped and where normal people are safe from them.
They were in Victorian / Edwardian / Georgian times and banged up for life. Unfortunately they did not help them in that time but they also did not release them for obvious reasons. They were not even released for two world wars as far as I know ? Having said that, many jails were emptied for that purpose :???
AFAIK as the law stands now you can be detained under section (x.x.x) in mental hospital if your suffering from a treatable mental illness for which you are refusing to take the prescribed medication and you are a danger to yourself or others.
this is separate to criminals dealt with by the courts.
this may sound alarming that theres lots of fruitcakes who are wandering the streets, but its astonishing the transformation when the right drugs are used. whats sad is that the knowledge thats available isn't getting through to the point where it should be being used.
unfortunately the reason why its in such a poor state atm is that people with mental health issues are as a result unable to make a fuss, and the NHS doesn't seem to treat people well until you make a fuss these days.
on the other hand someone who had a badly mended leg or whatever would stil be perfectly able to make a big fuss.
politicians seem to accept that the mental health service is unfortunately woefully inadequate yet they make no noises about improving it, just saying how unfortunate it is.
you cant obviously achieve perfection but recent advances over the last decade or two which are so spectacular simply arnt being made use of maybe due to apathy or unwillingness to retrain professionals with new techniques but so much of the Victorian attitude to wards mental health remains.
if theres a new cancer drug thats been out for 6 months people will be demanding it, but as i said before people with mental health problems are unable due to their problems.
so whats the way forward ? clearly attitudes like they should just be put down are going to perpetuate a disgracefully situation, no one wants to know until they have a relative or close friend who they have to watch suffer.
considering 1 in 3 people come into contact with the mental health services at some point in their life, its scary.
only sufferers with relatives who are strong enough and not blinkered by outdated views or apathy to stand up and not accept the situation seem to get the attention necessary, and then the difference is really eye opening.
when the people you refer to were released into the community it was called care in the community, it was just supposed to be the same care or much better care but not being locked up, however they were just simply let loose with no care at all in all but rare cases. that is until of course they end up doing something people call evil.
as for Hitler he was quite clearly insane, certainly later on, in fact this made him considerably ineffective as a military leader to the end of the war.
as for his generals, i think they were just stupid and greedy but mentally quite sane except maybe being psychopaths (no sense of other peoples suffering) - they do say power corrupts.
I think its right and proper they were executed after a fairly fair trial - the excuse that "well i was forced to do it or they would of killed me" only goes so far, people should know that if they do do such bad things they will be killed anyway which should influence their choice.
for a truly moral dilemma think of the people inside concentration camps who helped in the furnaces in order to stay alive themselves. - were they evil ? or just human ?
Meow.....fairly and justifiably put. There's no harm or wrong in taking a humanitarian stance on such issues. Lets hope you're right and my methods for safeguarding the innocent are not necessary.
No excuses, put them down like we would a vicious dog and save the tax payer a fortune.
I know this is kinda going backwards but I'd like to point something out.
The Death Penalty actually costs several times more than imprisoning someone for LIFE.
It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers.
I know this is kinda going backwards but I'd like to point something out.
The Death Penalty actually costs several times more than imprisoning someone for LIFE.
It has to do with the endless appeals, additional required procedures, and legal wrangling that drag the process out. It's not unusual for a prisoner to be on death row for 15-20 years. Judges, attorneys, court reporters, clerks, and court facilities all require a substantial investment by the taxpayers.
Meow.....fairly and justifiably put. There's no harm or wrong in taking a humanitarian stance on such issues. Lets hope you're right and my methods for safeguarding the innocent are not necessary.
thanks, although I don't see it as totally humanitarian stance, at least not like the softy humanitarian people who think there should be wide-screen TVs in prison.
its just common sense, as if you can get it right you can avoid the crime being done in the first place - which should be a "no brainer".
some people will slip through the net, I also don't believe it shouldn't be allowed to be a soft option, ie pleading mental health reasons to get a lesser sentence.
however until we can make sure we are doing the utmost to avoid or reduce as much as possible I don't think we can call ourselves civilised if we are punishing these people.
in particular the much high incidence of certain mental health conditions in the prison population should cause concern, especially as these people received no treatment for what are now very treatable conditions.
I would find it very hard to believe indeed if someone didn't know this woman was a bit wrong in the head.
I The Death Penalty actually costs several times more than imprisoning someone for LIFE.
Money well spent as it does deter those inclined towards these evil acts. Look at Britain, the murder rate has gone through the roof since we abolished hanging. There is also a fiddle in todays's figures, more and more are being charged with man-slaughter. Therefore the true murder figures are not known.
Money well spent as it does deter those inclined towards these evil acts. Look at Britain, the murder rate has gone through the roof since we abolished hanging. There is also a fiddle in todays's figures, more and more are being charged with man-slaughter. Therefore the true murder figures are not known.
But surely the death sentence would not deter them either (if they are that messed up)...it would take years for them to die in death row - so whats to stop people killing guards etc if they get the chance? They have nothing to lose..they could just go on a rampage.
Last edited by Toblerone; 03-08-2009 at 12:01..
Reason: Change wording
But surely the death sentence would not deter them either (if they are that messed up)...it would take years for them to die in death row - so whats to stop people killing guards etc if they get the chance? They have nothing to lose..they could just go on a rampage.
It's difficult to justify keeping this scum alive when we're terminating the lives of 185,000 innocent unborn babies each year.
Baby cut from mother found alive.
Luckily it's in the US and in a previous case the woman got the death penalty I think.
They were not even released for two world wars as far as I know ? Having said that, many jails were emptied for that purpose :???
Linear Mode
