Mistrial in Case of Girl's Severed Arms

[Fenris]

McKINNEY, Texas - A judge declared a mistrial Saturday in the murder trial of a woman accused of fatally cutting the arms off her 10-month-old daughter.

Jurors deadlocked during the fourth day of deliberations in the case of Dena Schlosser, 37, who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

"There was heated discussion, and tempers flared in the jury room," said juror Chris Penn as he left court. "It was a long ordeal, very tiring."

Attorneys confirmed a split of 10-2 in favor of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Penn said jurors argued "forcefully" trying to change the mind of one man, who wrote in a court note that he had made up his mind about Schlosser the first day of deliberations. Another juror could not decide, Penn added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060226/ap_on_re_us/severed_arms;_ylt=Aq7eHKeu_OIZ0m5oBoKmL9es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-">Yahoo

[rwenos]

1. So Try Her Again

and pay a little more attention to jury selection, Mr. Deputy District Attorney.

[happyslug]

2. 10 to 2 for NOT Guilty????

Sorry, what the Prosecutor needs to do is AGREE she was insane and sent her to the asylum where she belongs.

[rwenos]

3. Hard to Say

Without hearing the evidence, my friend.

Otherwise it's a little too easy to say you were crazy, eh?

I'm not defending the prosecutor. Sounds more to me like this lady WAS crazy. On the other hand, there are some people in the cemetery.

Too easy to bust off an opinion about the outcome. My point was about the apparent lack of good lawyering.

[happyslug]

6. My point was it was 10-2 for NOT guilty

In many states if this was a CIVIL Trial, no mistrial would have been issued, 10 votes is all you need to award damages. In my opinion when the defense was able to convince 10 jurors out of 12 to say she was INSANE,the prosecutor should accept that as the verdict instead of putting this woman and child through another trial.

Remember in a defense of Insanity, it is the DEFENSE that has the burden of proof, the defense has to admit that the CRIME occurred and then prove that the defendant was insane. Apparently 10 of the jurors accepted that she was insane, one said she was not and one was undecided. If I was the prosecutor I would go with Insanity and sent her to the asylum where she belongs (and according to 10 of the 12 people who heard the evidence said she should go).

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Oh I don't know, mostly I think

people who chop off their children's arms are BLOODY WELL INSANE. But I'm not a psychiatrist so that is just my uneducated opinion.

[superconnected]

87. There is a fundies upstairs from me, right now

that will do it, if he believes God wants them to.

[LostinVA]

21. Sorry, but when every single doctor says she was psychotic

Then she wa psychotic. The DA just wants a conviction, not justice.

[Warpy]

5. Absolutely. Civilized countries always consider the possibility

of postpartum psychosis in any death of a child under two at the hands of its mother. It's high time we caught up to the rest of the world and recognized that, while it's rare, postpartum psychosis is very real and sometimes fatal to mom or kids or both.

That prosecutor needs to get his head out of his ass and his hand off his dick and go talk to a few practicing psychiatrists about what's going on with this woman.

Try her again? Hell no. Put her in a mental institution where she belongs and hope she gets well and comes to terms with what she did when she was off her head.

[SquireJons]

10. Right...

And hopefully, she will complete her counseling and return to society where she belongs. It was just a little temporary insanity; just a bad case of PMS. I can't wait till she gets out, I want her to have my baby.

What's the difference between an asylum and a prison? Not much, except most people get let out of asylums when they 'get better.' Well, her kid doesn't have that luxury. Some people have no concept of personal responsibility.

There are fucked up people out there who do fucked up things. When they do, they should pay the price. In this case, that should mean life in prison. Period. You're either in control of yourself or you're not. She's obviously not.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. See post #12

THen maybe you can give that rant with a little bit of background information on the tragedy. Beating your post-partum wife in public is my definition of "people have no concept of personal responsibility."

Lock his ass up for life too, then it's a deal."You're either in control of yourself or you're not." He obviously was not to publicly humiliate his wife in front of his daughters.

[SquireJons]

19. Absolutely

Lock his ass up too. But his crime is far less serious than hers:

The charges:

1. He's a Texan - guilty (carries no peneatly)
2. He's a mindless fundy - guilty (carries no penalty)
3. He's a first rate asshole - guilty (carries no penalty)
4. He beats his wife - guilty (2 - 5 years in jail)
5. He (unwittingly) contributed to the torture and death of his daughter - guilty (life in hell, but carries no crimnal penalties)

Yes, he's an ass, but that in no way excuses her actions. I stand by my verdict: life in jail. If I made any exception for capitol punishment it would be for anyone who kills a kid (non accident). Killing your own kid is so much worse. Dante's lowest ring of hell is reserved for these people.

[Mithras61]

20. So you believe that there is no such thing as...

a treatable insanity? Could it possibly be that this woman was denied desparately needed medicines because her religious leader taught that she just needed an exorcism, and that her insanity could be treated with some of the modern psychoactive drugs that actually allow many insane people to lead relatively normal lives?

[SquireJons]

44. Let her have a long, relatively normal life

In jail. No excuses. If my own son did this, whom I love more than life itself, I would not change my mind. There is no way to safely live next to a psychotic person who has already killed.

[LostinVA]

23. She is mentally ILL, not a criminal

Why can't you accept that? It's a fact, not an opinion. If you truly knew what psychosis was, you wouldn't say that.

I sincerely hope no one close to you is ever affected by this horrible illness, especially since they will get no understanding from you.

Intolerance+Ignorance=Injustice.

[LisaL]

30. No, she is mentally ill criminal.

Nobody is disputing she killed the child, which in fact makes her a killer.
So, HTF can she be not guilty when she did indeed commit the act?
The law should be changed to guilty but insane, because just because the person is insane doesn't change the fact that they are also guilty.

[iverglas]

51. what an excellent question

So, HTF can she be not guilty when she did indeed commit the act?

Now, why don't you try listening when people tell you the answer?

Are you in favour of life sentences for people who kill in self-defence, too?

C'mon now; how the fuck can they not be guilty when they did indeed commit the act?


The law should be changed to guilty but insane, because just because the person is insane doesn't change the fact that they are also guilty.

Ah, if only you knew what you were talking about, the world would be that little bit better.

Just because the person is insane doesn't change the fact that they committed the act -- NOT that they are guilty of a crime. Ask google to tell you what mens rea means, will you?

A person who does not intend to do wrong is generally not guilty of a crime, no matter what kind of delicious thrill you might get from pointing your finger at him/her.

[depakid]

54. People have a hard time wrapping their minds around mens rea

in a lot of cases. With degrees of homicide, it's fairly easy. With the legal fact of whether a person is culpable for a homicide or not- that gets tricky. And it's understandable.

Oregon gets around that problem with a verdict of "guilty but insane." It's just a semantic thing- same legal effect- same bottom line- a choice of hotels. Defendants who plea that way aren't released until the Psychiatric Security Review Board allows it- and they're pretty thorough.

Texas- being how it is, could seriously benefit from making a similar change (and adopting a more reasonable and up to date standard than the 160 year old McNaghten rule for proving an insanity defense).

[iverglas]

67. I understand the impulse

Oregon gets around that problem with a verdict of "guilty but insane." It's just a semantic thing ...

-- trying to get people to put their minds to the issue instead of letting their own finger-pointing impulses take over -- but it really isn't quite a semantics thing.

The whole concept of "guilt" is being distorted by a finding of "guilty but insane". "Guilty" just doesn't mean did it.

There are two separate findings:

- did it or didn't do it (the act, or actus reus);

- meant to do wrong or didn't mean to do wrong (the mental element, the mens rea).

A person who is insane (or not) and who didn't do it is "not guilty" -- didn't do it, so can't be guilty of doing it.

A person who is sane (or not) and who did do it but didn't intend to do wrong is "not guilty". Accident is an example -- I ran over you and killed you, but I did it when I swerved to avoid a child who ran out into the street, that sort of thing. One doesn't have to be insane to have done something but be not guilty of it.

To my mind, it would distort the entire concept of "guilt" to say that someone is "guilty but insane".

It's entirely possible to be guilty but insane -- being insane doesn't make one incapable of being guilty of something. An insane person who believes that Oral Roberts is trying to kill her (as a client of mind did, quite sincerely, it seemed) could still be guilty of stealing a pair of shoes she took a fancy to, if her desire for the shoes had nothing to do with Oral Roberts and she knew full well that stealing was illegal and wrong.

An insane person could be guilty of killing his parents for the insurance money, too, quite apart from the fact that he sincerely believed that his parents were extraterrestrials. That's my problem with "guilty but insane", basically. It completely confuses the issue.

What people seem to (want to) forget is that a "not guilty by reason of insanity" only occurs if the jury actually finds that the person did do it. "Did it but not capable of knowing that it was wrong" is what it means, and there's a genuine reality that this expresses.

But fer sure, the M'Naghten rule isn't quite up to today's snuff. There are just more nuances, like whether a person was capable of appreciating the nature, and rightness and wrongness, of particular acts.

[depakid]

68. The deal is still the same

The "crime" so to speak was never committed (and I misspoke in my post below- see how easy it is). The actus reus- the external elements of the offense- the jury knows they happened, and laypeople just don't get that some mental state (guilty mind) is required for almost any crime (except modern day "strict liability" regulatory matters)- as it has been for centuries.

That being the case- justice is more often done when the semantics = what the jury can understand. In another world- before Hollywood with it's "Dirty Harry" exploitation- and before Reagan and the far right perverted the criminal justice system, people had more capacity to understand the law (and quite frankly- they were generally better educated in civics).

Being a pragmatist- I'm less concerned with what something sounds like than what the results are.

[iverglas]

70. Oh, I definitely get that!

I completely appreciate the reasons. It just boggles my mind that it's easier to explain something that makes no sense than it is to explain something that makes, well, maybe not perfect sense, but then what does?

;)

[depakid]

73. As I've said for many years

when absurdites like this come up:

Welcome to Reagan's America. I guess I'm going to have to change that at some point down the road to Bush's America- :mad:

As you've probably gleaned, I understand your posts- and in a less Kafka-esque world, I'd completely agree with them.

[SquireJons]

33. Actions have consequences

Why do you contest that? I'm not saying that she wasn't psychotic when she cut her baby's arms off and killed the child. All I'm saying is that psychosis does not excuse the crime. If I go crazy and kill a bunch of people, they should lock my ass up for life. If I'm so nuts that I can't even interact with a prison population, then put me in an asylum. If not, then prison. If I 'get better' at an asylum, then move me to a nice cozy prison cell after my stay at the 'hospital.'

Murdering kids = life in jail. It's pretty simple really.

[LostinVA]

40. Again, by saying that, you don't understand psychosis

I contest that, because saying that is quite literally BARBARIC. Psychosis DOES excuse the crime, that's the whole point of the "insanity" please.

She didn't murder anybody. She killed the baby. Huge difference,m but one that you are too uneducated in mental illness to understand -- or to admit.

Ignore. Convicting the mentally ill is barbaric.

[SquireJons]

42. I disagree,

But I guess I'm not educated enough to have an opinion according to you. Hell, lets set them all free, since we've all had a hard life. Anarchy is The Way.

Where's Bill the Cat when I really need him?

[iverglas]

53. no, you don't disagree

One can only disagree about a subject when one knows what it is.

What you are doing is spouting an opinion about something you either know nothing about or are pretending to know nothing about. Nothing to do with disagreeing.

"All I'm saying is that psychosis does not excuse the crime."

And you're absolutely right.

If the action was committed out of a mistaken belief caused by psychosis, there was no crime. Simple as that.

[LostinVA]

62. Correct -- Iverglas DOES understand psychosis

Unlike some people in this thread. A gold star for today!

[sendero]

71. Really...

.... you are not (educated enough, or perhaps intelligent enough, impossible to say. It's really that simple.

[mopinko]

45. sorry to hear about your unhappy childhood.

it shows.

[LostinVA]

22. Glad to know you are so smart you know the difference

between PMS and psychosis. Maybe you should educate yourself on what mental illness actually is, instead of being so hellbent of punishing people that medically and ethically shouldn't be punished.

The ignorance concerning mental illness on DU astounds me.

[SquireJons]

35. Please see post # 33

I'll go to the mat the issue of 'shouldn't be punished.' That's ridiculous, of course she should be punished. The only issue is what the punishment should be. There is no 'treatment' for murder. Mental illness should not be used as an excuse for violent crime. Perhaps severe mental retardation, but even then, society has a right and responsibility to protect itself. I would reform the penal system, but I would not release murders back into the general population, ever. It's too risky.

[iverglas]

50. what a relief

that people who are so totally and wilfully ignorant as your words make it plain that you either are or are pretending to be, and seem to pride yourself on being, seldom rise to any position in which they might exercise influence over other people's lives.

Sadly, they sometimes vote, and manage to get onto juries.

Even more sadly, they too often hang out at websites meant to be places for "liberals" and "progressives" to discuss important issues of social policy ...

[happyslug]

46. NO one is saying she was TEMPORARY INSANE

They are saying she was and is Psychotic. I.e. at the time of the incident she had no concpet of right or wrong (i.e. she beleived she was doing RIGHT when she cut the arms off her child).

[LostinVA]

47. I'll say it again -- people in this country have no concept

of what mental illness is. Or, often on DU. And they really don't get what psychosis is. *sigh*

[TaleWgnDg]

4. If jury member Chris Penn is correct when he says that another

juror had made up his mind about Schlosser (trial outcome) the first day of deliberations, then it's grounds for a mistrial or over-turing any jury verdict on appeal. And this other juror allegedly put this in WRITING? LOL . . . oh, well.

.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. I missing the part where a juror has to wait

any amount of time at all after deliberations start before deciding how he or she will vote.

[LisaL]

9. Are you coming up with the rules as you go?

Do show where it says that juror can not make up his mind the first day of deliberations. Grounds for mistrial? Give me a break! Do you realize that some deliberations last a lot less than one day. Which means all the jurors made up their mind on the first day of deliberations, which is perfectly legal.

[ErisFiveFingers]

11. FTA:

"The Schlosser family went several times a week to the Water of Life Church. The pastor, Doyle Davidson, testified that he believes mental illness is possession by demons and only God can cure it."

Well, there's more than one person in this sad tale who should probably be placed in a controlled situation in order to prevent them from causing future harm to society.

[rainbow4321]

12. Husband beat the wife w/ a wooden spoon a day before the murder

..in the church parking lot a day before the wife cut the baby's arms off. The beating was witnessed by their other children. Here is a link about it:


http://www.heralddemocrat.com/articles/2005/02/13/texas_news/iq_1744237.txt

The day before the baby's death, the couple argued in the parking lot of their church because Dena Schlosser said she wanted to give their youngest daughter to God, according to the psychiatric report and CPS officials.

The couple talked about a Bible passage in which a woman promises her baby to God. John Schlosser said the conversation was not unusual because his wife is "very religious but often misinterprets scriptures."

Long also noted that the couple's 6-year-old daughter told CPS caseworkers that her father spanked her mother with a wooden spoon for not listening to him when they argued in the parking lot.

Long said John Schlosser could benefit from parenting education, though he scored within normal limits on a parenting test. But she expressed concern that his lack of understanding of mental illness and his wife's condition "will negatively impact his daughters."

[Raine]

13. I feel so sorry

for those poor kids that are left with parents like that. :-(

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

32. So that excuses her?

I say lock 'em both up.

[rainbow4321]

37. I never said it excused her..

My post was in response to the poster who was commenting on the family/church..per the person's post: "Well, there's more than one person in this sad tale who should probably be placed in a controlled situation in order to prevent them from causing future harm to society."

The info that I posted was to add further info on the husband/family/church dynamics before the murder.

The state made a mistake in leaving the kids w/ him... after the murder our local paper said TX's CPS people OK'd the kids living w/ him as long as he allowed the children to call their aunt in NY once a week--she is a social worker, I believe, and for some dumb ass REASON the state of TX decided a phone call to a relative (because of her profession) 3K miles away would make the home environment an acceptable place for the kids.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

41. Duly noted

But I think your point is tangential.

[iverglas]

48. so you got a problem with words on the monitor?

So that excuses her?

Why are you asking this question of someone who NEVER SAID, NEVER IMPLIED, and NEVER GAVE YOU ANY OTHER GROUNDS TO BELIEVE that s/he believed that ANYTHING "EXCUSED" ANYONE???


Why, why, why, why, why have you intentionally tried to portray someone else as having said something, or as having meant something, or as believing something, THAT YOU HAVE NO REASON OR EVIDENCE to support?

WHY?

Because you can't argue your own position rationally and civilly and honestly and your only weapon is to misrepresent someone else's?

Just askin'. For all I know, you have an actual good reason. Just wish I could think of what it might be.

[SquireJons]

36. So her actions were premeditated.

And based on her perverse ideas of religion. If she walks on this, I'm gonna join a fundy church so I can take out a few people, and then blame it all on god (sarc). What a load of bull crap this whole damned thing is.

[rainbow4321]

39. Speaking of church and murders....

Ok...what's up with these people..gunman enters the church, KILLS a woman during the services, wounds a young boy, and the members decide to just go on ahead and finish up the service. Did they wait for the body to be removed at least? And wouldn't the place be a CRIME scene, blocked off??


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022706dnnatshooting.713bee5.html


A man opened fire during a church service Sunday, killing an 18-year-old woman and wounding her child before shooting another man outside, according to police.

After the gunman left, church members embraced each other before continuing to pray as police started coming in, she said.

"It was a lot of crying, a lot of hugging and a lot of praying," she said.

Church members then continued the service, Tate said. "They didn't let this incident stop the reason why they came to church," he said. "They came to worship."

[SquireJons]

43. My favorite quote of all time...

"The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims; they've all got it wrong. There are only two types of people in the world. Those with brains and no religion, and those with religion and no brains" - 11th century Syrian Philosopher

[Critters2]

79. Just for the record...

if someone came into a service in my church and started firing a gun, I would

a)stop the service

b) call 911

d) make sure everyone got out safely--and check on those who were hurt

e) change my underwear

[renate]

90. Texas....

:eyes:

[iverglas]

49. yeah, that's it all right ("(sarc)")

Yeah, people who talk about their delusions are "premeditating" crimes. That's it all right.

What a load of bull crap this whole damned thing is.

Couldn't say it better myself. Of course, we might not be talking about the same thing.

[rainbow4321]

14. Juror who voted guilty refused to participate in deliberations.

Apparently this is why the jury kept sending notes to the judge about the definition of deliberation and for a repeat of the judge's instructions to them...one of them would not "participate". His ass needs to go to jail for a while if this is true.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022506dnccoschlosser.21e9594e.html


Dena Schlosser's capital murder trial ended in a hung jury Saturday, with one juror firmly against 10 others who had concluded she was not guilty by reason of insanity and one panelist who would not decide.

State District Judge Chris Oldner declared the mistrial about 5:45 p.m., after jurors said for the third time that they were hopelessly deadlocked. Jurors said the man who voted guilty refused to participate in deliberations.

Steve Penn, a juror from Plano who voted for insanity, said the holdout's "mind was partially made up before we started deliberating."
He said the jury room was emotional with both "heated debate and polite discourse."

"We could not convince him to go through the process in a rational way," he said. "There was a lot of evidence that just tore at your heart."

[ErisFiveFingers]

16. Would you feel differently...

If the one holdout juror had decided on a verdict of "not guilty". and refused to participate in 10 others attempting to browbeat that one juror into a delivering guilty verdict? To me, this sounds like how our justice system is *supposed* to work.

[HuffleClaw]

17. "Mr. Sorrels also said the holdout juror possibly has an...

...oppositional personality or is morally opposed to sending a person to a mental hospital with the possibility that they could be back on the street someday.

"If she's so obviously legally insane, he's decided he's not going to follow the law," he said. "Although I'm sure he promised to when they picked the jury.""

clearly, that one guy has got to be choosing his 'morals' over the law and likely simply doesn't 'believe' in the whole 'not guilty by reason of insanity' thing. i'd call it obstruction of justice.

and there's this: "The prosecution did not call any psychiatrists who had examined Ms. Schlosser." most likely because those psychiatrists' testimony would have helped the defence.

[LisaL]

29. Well, it's called jury nullification.

I don't want insane killers to run around freely either, but hey, it's probably just me.

[Mithras61]

18. One thing that many of you appear to have forgotten...

The trial was in Texas. This is the state that puts mentally handicapped people to death on a semi-regular basis. There is a significant contingent of Texans that appear to believe that it doesn't matter how insane or otherwise mentally handicapped a person was at the time of the crime, if they appear even semi-rational during the trial. It seems to me that the juror in question belongs to this group. This juror simply cannot believe that mental illness could cause a person to commit a crime this heinous and is determined that she be executed for the crime, even though the remainder of the jury either is indecisive (yes, there really are people who simply are incapable of making a decision when someone's life is on the line) or convinced by the defense that this poor woman was off the deep end.

Keep in mind also that the case of Andrea Pia Yates being convicted for murder by a jury based almost exclusively on testimony from an "expert" that the defendant had seen a similar case in a TV show (when in fact such an episode does not and never has existed). The TX Supreme Court sent it back for retrial. It may be that the jurors mostly felt it was better to err on the side of caution in this case, since the other case was quite similar.

I've heard it joked here (in TX) that these people put the "mental" in "fundamentalist" which pretty much gives you a good idea where some of the people here stand on the issue.

[Cronus Protagonist]

24. If I read you right, you're saying fundamentalists who kill are insane?

Or is it just this one? What do we do about all the rest? Wait for them to cut their kids up too and then let them off with an insanity defense? I think we need to revisit our priorities in mental health. Let's face it, fundamentalism in any religion is a sign of insanity and the people should be locked up and treated, not be allowed access to weapons and children. I vote for prevention instead of lenient sentencing.

[OKthatsIT]

26. I think that will be the ultimate appeal when Bush is put on trial, too

Aren't most Fundamentalists insane?

[Mithras61]

81. No, that is NOT what I said...

What I said is that people joke about fundamentalism here.

I also said that there are many here in TX who cannot separate intent from action (that is, when one is legally insane in this type of case, one cannot discern right from wrong, so there is no intent to do wrong, even though the act is by our laws wrong).

I don't KNOW that fundamentalism is wrong or that it makes one insane. I do know that most of the people here in TX who plead not guilty by reason of insanity and appear to have legitimate grounds seem to be deeply involved in a fundamentalist religion.

As far as fundamentalists who kill being insane, I'm not sure where that came from, but I would clarify that insane fundamentalists who kill are insane and in need of psychiatric treatment, not life sentences to prison or the death penalty.

[Cronus Protagonist]

84. Isn't every killer insane, then?

Surely one would have to be insane to kill another human being. So why do some people get a break? And why should they get a break?

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Mithras61]

86. No, not all killers are insane.

Some are sociopaths. Some just get a thrill from it. Insane in the case we're discussing relates to the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong, not whether someone is "well adjusted" or not.

If she was unable to distinguish that what she was doing was wrong at the time she was doing it, then she may have commited the crime without being guilty of murder. If she knew but didn't care, or got some sick thrill, then (in the eyes of the law) she was sane.

As to why some people get a break when others don't consider this - Would it be right to put a 5-year-old child to death if they shot someone? I would argue that a 5-year-old is not likely to be able to determine that shooting someone is wrong, and should therefore not be executed. I think you would find that most states would agree with me. It's about understanding that what you are doing is wrong. If you can't (or at the time you commited the crime, couldn't), then you aren't GUILTY of the crime. That doesn't mean you don't need help, only that you shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone who CAN understand.

[LostinVA]

88. Nope, sociopaths are very, very sane

[Mikimouse]

27. It seems to me that the jury in the Deanna Laney case...

certainly thought that she was insane enough to do what she did, no? Of course we all realize that there are no issues of social class perceptions involved in these cases:sarcasm:. The whole system is rotten.

[Mithras61]

82. You are absolutely correct that social class has much to do...

with this (and with ANY) criminal case in our society. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that those who are wealthy (e.g. - OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson) get better representation that those who are poor (the list is WAY to extensive to get into). Yes, it sucks, but I don't know what can be done to correct it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

28. Gosh, nice understanding of what psychosis and mental illness is

I truly and sincerely hope no one close to you ever becomes psychotic. It is a horrible, horrible mental illness that so many people don't understand, including yourself.

What happened to the baby was indeed horrible and tragic, but what happened to the mother was almost just as tragic. Her family, community, and governmental system wouldn't give her the MEDICAL CARE she needed. Understand? MEDICAL care. Thus is a medical illness, not a sociopath personality disorder.

[LisaL]

31. I don't care if she was psychotic.

I really don't. Unless they find a way to keep insane killers locked up, I would have done exactly as the hold out juror did in this case. I have no wish to see this woman running freely on the street.

[SquireJons]

38. Thank You!!!

I'm glad to see that I am not alone in wanting crazy murderers off the streets permanently. If she moved next to me, I'd (want to)shoot her like a rabid dog before she got a chance to 'go crazy' again. It's interesting how the issue of responsibility gets twisted around the capitol punishment issue. Personally, I think killing is always wrong except in self defense, but I wonder how folks here would feel about the case if there were no death penalty? What exactly is wrong with society protecting itself from a known violent person? To me the testimony about her discussing killing her daughter and 'sending her to god' is evidence of premeditation, which as I understand it, eliminates the insanity defense. In any event, she's nuts and needs to go away and never bother anyone again. It doesn't really matter to me where, as long as she never sees freedom again.

[Bridget Burke]

58. You aren't alone...the juror who caused the mistrial is on your side.

Ms. Schlosser went off her meds because of an insurance "mixup." Her husband did nothing about it, per his minister:

McKINNEY -- The minister of the Plano woman accused of severing her daughter's arms told a Collin County jury Wednesday that mental problems are caused by demons and cannot be cured by medicine....

On the stand for more than an hour, Doyle Davidson spoke of demons overtaking people and the presence of a Jezebel spirit ruling Plano, and he compared himself to the apostle Paul who was summoned to Rome as Davidson said he was summoned to McKinney.

"I do not believe that any mental illness exists other than demons, and no medication can straighten it out, other than the power of God," said Davidson, the 73-year-old minister of the Water of Life Church, which the Schlosser family attended several times a week.

Schlosser, 37, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutors argue that she knew right from wrong at the time of her daughter's death. But defense attorneys have argued that Schlosser was a good mother who had a history of mental problems that went ignored by her husband and doctors until the killing....

A former horse veterinarian, Davidson said he never studied at a seminary because God told him not to. He was taught to preach by reading the Bible and through the spirit of God, he testified. Pictures on a church Web site of Davidson's $400,000 home were submitted into evidence, and Davidson said it was paid for in one year by his parish.

www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/13886254.htm

Opinions are cheap. Whether they come from former horse veterinarians or the anonymous ignorant.

[depakid]

55. Some research

would help calm your fears.

People who are found to have a "mental disease or defect" that causes them to commit a crime- pretty much any crime- aren't just put back on the streets. And in more than a few cases, they're kept segregated from society longer than a comperable criminal sentence would permit.

What it boils down to- in lawyers parlance- is a "choice of hotels," the proper hotel being one where people can get the appropriate treatment- in facilities that equipped to handle them, where they won't be a danger to other inmates or to corrections personnel who aren't trained to deal with the the mentally ill-

That's a win/win all around.

[LisaL]

64. That's bullshit.

They had a recent case in Texas, where a guy killed his sister, was found not guilty by reason of insanity, was released after four months in a mental hospital, and killed his girlfriend's 6 year old son by sticking him in oven. So, do tell me-how are they not put back on the street again?
Geez. The system does not work when it comes to keeping the insane in after they are found not guilty by reason of insanity, and innocent people, like this poor 6 year old child, are paying the price for someone who has "compassion for insane killers". Who do I have compassion for? Their next victim, that's who.

[iverglas]

66. so as long as we're playing the blame game

So, do tell me-how are they not put back on the street again?

If they are -- whose fault is it? Theirs? Did they sign the release orders?

I don't think so. If you want someone to blame, do your homework and find out who made these decisions, and based on what. And tell your legislators what you think about them.

If the individual was psychotic, he wasn't to blame for his first offence, and he certainly wasn't to blame for his release. If he was released subject to supervision and agreement to take medications, and he didn't comply, then again, the responsibility lies with whatever authority was responsible for monitoring his compliance.

innocent people ... are paying the price for someone who has "compassion for insane killers".

What earthly sense did that make?

It sounds like the victims are paying the price for someone's failure to neutralize whatever threat people who are dangerously psychotic present -- including before any threat materializes at all.

So hold them accountable, and let your legislators know that you're willing to pay the price for what it takes to neutralize the threat presented by such people.

Of course, you don't get to exact a price from them that you're not entitled to. You're no more entitled to have their fundamental rights violated than they are to present a threat.

Ah, the good old days, when the mentally ill and the epileptics and the promiscuous women could just be tied up, or locked away, or expelled, or starved. Life was so much simpler then, wasn't it?

[LisaL]

76. Oh give me a break.

And funny thing, the guy who killed his sister, then was released and killed a six year old boy was found guilty for the murder of the boy. I guess he was insane the first time, but second time-no. Apparently he became sane after murdering his sister and being released from the hospital.
So, I guess they did get to exact the price from that individual, no?
He is locked up and is not getting out this time around.
Unless, of course, his conviction ends up overturned just as Andrea's was.
:eyes:

[Mithras61]

83. Can you provide any details on this case?

It sounds fascinating, and I'd like to get more details than what you have provided so far.

[depakid]

69. Welp, that's not been what I've observed over the years

Quite the opposite, actually- though I can't comment on the Texas case, since I don't know any of the facts.

I will say, however, that Texas has one of the most (for lack of better words) fucked up justice systems in the 50 states (and it probably matches up with some third world countries). That someone would slip through the system- or possibly had the right connections might not surprise me- but it would surprise me if that were anything other than a rare case- and one that you wouldn't expect to see in most other places. You sure don't see that in Oregon, Washington or California- which are the states that I'm familiar with.

[lastliberalintexas]

65. Yeah, but why would we want to look at facts when we have an agenda?

There are some people on this board who refuse to understand or acknowledge what a NGBRMD trualy means. As you pointed out, people who are found NGBRMD actually spend MORE time locked up, on average, than do people who go through the traditional jail system. In fact, a friend of mine had a client who refused to go the NGBRMD route for that very reason, as it is apparently fairly common knowledge "on the streets".

Instead, those people with an agenda to denigrate the American legal system will spout off that people who are found NGBRMD will almost immediately be returned to the streets and will invariably kill again- also almost immediately. No cites, links or other truly identifying information will be provided concerning these alleged cases of people who were found NGBRMD and are now simply roaming the streets, waiting to kill KILL again. But they're out there, and we should be just as afraid of them as we are of the terrorists who are going to strike YOUR hometown at any second. Be afraid! :eyes:


NGBRMD = Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Defect

[ingac70]

56. Rabid dogs can't help it either.

[iverglas]

57. that's quite the metaphor you've got going

"This bitch", "rabid dogs" ... maybe if her husband had muzzled her and tied her up properly when he went out, instead of just beating her, none of this would have happened, eh?

Funny thing ... how so many women have experienced the association between being called hateful things and being beaten for disobedience. Thanks for the insight. I mean, actually, it was kind of superfluous and nauseating, and thanks isn't really what I want to say, but whatever.

[ingac70]

59. She was a foul, religious fundie fruitcake.....

That cut her daughter's arms off because she wanted to "give" her to "God".
She is a waste of oxygen, as well as her fundie husband.

[iverglas]

60. yeah; thanks

One did get your message the first couple of times, even if it isn't exactly what you'd like it to be.

I sure do find it striking that over on this side, ya got yer fundies who see sin everywhere, while over on that side, ya got yer anti-fundies ... who see sin everywhere.

Y'all look exactly alike, from my vantage point.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikelgb]

34. what is a logical explanation....

of how this crime could have been committed by a sane person

[I_Make_Mistakes]

52. Let's try this. A person is diagnosed with epilesy. They are at

a steak house and they pick up their steak knife have a seizure and stab the waiter putting the catsup on the table.

He dies.

Is he a murderer? And what punishment does he deserve?

What about the guy who has an heart attack driving, loses control of the car and kills another car load of people? Is he a murderer?

And what punishment does he deserve?

[LisaL]

63. How about someone with epilepsy, driving, having

a seizure and killing someone, all the while knowing they had epilepsy and were prone to seizures? What punishment would that person deserve?

[depakid]

72. That would be recklessness

It's a culpable mental state, and if proven, would satisfy that element of the offense.

The sentence would depend on what's in the sentencing matrix or guidelines- along with mitigating or aggravating factors.

[iverglas]

74. hmm

Does epilepsy make people incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or their next-door neighbour from a member of the vast conspiracy that is plotting to kill them?

http://canlii.com/ca/cas/scc/1994/1994scc55.html
(Supreme Court of Canada)

The accused killed, without apparent motive, a friend who was sleeping in his apartment. For a number of years the accused had been suffering from a mental disorder described as a psychosis of a paranoid delusional type and, at the time of the killing, his paranoia was fixed on a belief that the members of a local union were conspiring to "destroy" him.

On the night of the murder, he became convinced that they had surrounded his apartment building with the intention of killing him. This delusion, combined with his belief that the victim was one of the conspirators, persuaded him that he was obliged to kill the victim to prevent her from killing him.

At his trial on a charge of second degree murder, the accused raised the defence of insanity. Psychiatrists testified that the accused possessed the general capacity to distinguish right from wrong and would know that to kill a person is wrong but that, on the night of the murder, his delusion deprived him of that capacity and led him to believe that killing was necessary and justified under the circumstances as he perceived them.

The trial judge rejected the defence of insanity, concluding that in view of the accused's general capacity to know right from wrong, he was not relieved from criminal responsibility under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code, notwithstanding his subjective belief, at the time of the killing, that what he did was right and his inability to apply his general knowledge of right and wrong. The Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of s. 16(1).

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Section 16(1) of the Code embraces not only the intellectual ability to know right from wrong in an abstract sense, but also the ability to apply that knowledge in a rational way to the alleged criminal act.

Indeed, the section focuses on the particular capacity of the accused to understand that his act was wrong at the time of committing the act. An accused should thus be exempted from criminal liability where, at the time of the act, a mental disorder deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and hence rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of the act.

An accused need not establish that his delusion permits him to raise a specific defence, such as self-defence, to be exempted from criminal responsibility. The inability to make a rational choice may result from a variety of mental disorders, including delusions which cause an accused to perceive an act which is wrong as right or justifiable. Here, the evidence was capable of supporting a conclusion that the accused was deprived of the capacity to know his act was wrong by the standards of the ordinary person.

(Departure from the M'Naghten rules, I think, if depakid is watching)

If I believed that my neighbour was engaged in a vast conspiracy against me and that if I didn't kill her she'd kill me at the first opportunity (and had of course been unable to persuade the police or anyone else of this fact), I think I might act pre-emptively too.

The urge to punish people for acting on their genuine belief about the state of the world (crazy though the belief may seem and unbelievable as it may be to anyone else that someone could believe it), and doing what they think is going to save themselves or someone else (like their kids) from some greater harm, is something I can never understand.

I can't put myself in such people's shoes -- I can't know what I'd do if I believed such things, because I can't begin to imagine how someone could believe such things. But then I can't begin to imagine how someone can believe that when they close their eyes and whisper, there's a big Santa Claus in the sky listening to them.

I just have to figure that a lot of people do believe things that are completely loony on their face. And that for some of them, the things they believe, through no fault of their own (and obviously at great expense to themselves, given how many people with psychoses, and especially paranoia, are homeless and hungry), make the world a very scary place for them indeed.

[LisaL]

77. During an epileptic fit, I doubt the person can distinguish

anything at all.
Before the fit, however, when they get in a car and decide to drive, they had to know they can have a fit and end up murdering someone.

[iverglas]

78. well fuckin' duh, eh?

During an epileptic fit, I doubt the person can distinguish anything at all.
Before the fit, however, when they get in a car and decide to drive, they had to know they can have a fit and end up murdering someone.

Well, except that you've just demonstrated a few more things you now precisely bugger all about.

For starters, nobody (well, except maybe the Brits; you a Brit?) has referred to epileptic seizures as "fits" for a few decades now.

For more, depending on the type of seizure occurring, a person with epilepsy may be completely aware of his/her surroundings ... and not lose track of his/her conscience at all.

And then we have your fine legal mind at work again, unable to distinguish between "murder" -- which requires intent, not negligence -- and another form of culpable homicide.

And of course then we could get to the damned point.

A person with diagnosed epilepsy will likely have been told not to drive, and in fact denied a driver's licence. Yup, s/he knows the risks when s/he gets behind the wheel.

Now, at precisely which point in his/her life, or day, does the psychotic know that his/her delusions are not real, and decide to believe them anyway?

Cripes.

A century ago, people with epilepsy actually were treated about the way you'd like people with psychoses to be treated today. I guess expecting you to grasp the concept of psychosis, and the problems of people with psychoses, so soon would be a bit much.

[Mithras61]

85. Which would be why you can't get...

a driver's license if you have epilepsy (at least, not in TX, FL, or WI). My sister has petit mal seizures. Most people never realize she even has epilepsy, but ANY degree is enough to prevent her from getting a license. It's really a pain for her, too, because her S.O. is suffering from macular degeneration and can't drive anymore either.

So yes, if a person with epilepsy were to just get in a car & drive and then have a seizure and cause an accident, there's a good chance they'd be liable at some level. The first question I'd be asking in that case is "Why was this person, who can't even get a DL , doing driving a car... an inherently dangerous act that they KNOW is imensely more dangerous for them to participate in?" because chances are that they probably had a valid reason for doing so (like rushing their spouse to the hospital when they are over 20 minutes away from ambulance care and only 12 minutes away from the hospital). Yes, I WOULD consider extenuating circumstances, such as what was going on that they felt the need to drive, or their mental state (e.g. - were they psychotic), etc.

[happyslug]

75. Cars, Guns Planes etc are inherently dangerous instrumentalities.

And as such strict liability usually incurs when someone is killed. The rationale behind such strict liability is that merely operating such instrumentality you agree to operate it properly. Thus when someone shots some accidentally the shooter is generally charged with Manslaughter. When someone lose control of his car he is charged with Manslaughter (or homicide by Vehicle in some states). Through in both cases juries made of of people who own guns (in rural areas) or operate cars (In most of the US) tend NOT to find such people guilty when someone is killed. People do NOT like convicting people for things they themselves often do. Thus Juries will often jump into whatever holes in the law to permit them to leave themselves off. Often these holes in the law reflect the Judges and Legislatures preferences (for example while claiming to advice society, require Prosecutor to prove recklessness in the operation of a Car over and above just driving a Car when that Car-driver kills someone).

Getting away from the weakness of the Jury System, whenever you operate something that can kill, and it is known to kill, the law holds you strictly liable for its operation. You have to make extra effort to show you did everything possible to avoid killing someone if you do not you go to Jail (Again this is rare for Juries just do NOT like Convicting people of vehicle manslaughter, the same was the case prior to about 1980 when it came to Drunk Drivers, Juries were reluctant to convict for Juries often IDs with the Defendant and as I said above Juries do NOT like Convicting themselves, the most effective anti-Drunk driving campaign was MADD's constant attacks on Drunk Driver which has convinced a lot of people , and thus juries that Drunk Drivers are so Dangerous that they should be jailed).

Anyway, my point was you really can NOT compare insanity to Vehicle Homicide or even Accidental Shootings. You can be striped of the ability to operate a Car or a Gun if you are adjudged incapable of properly operating either, this is fundamentally different from someone who is insane. On the other hand your example of a Waiter who has an epileptic fit and kills someone (with or without a knife) is on point, he had NO intention to kill anyone, when he committed his act of killing he had no control over himself and thus like an Insane person NOT liable for his actions.

Now let me make a comment about an implication in this thread that is implied by unstated, i.e. if you are ruled Insane you get to walk. In my home state of Pennsylvania we use to joke about the Insanity defense and why it was so rarely used, the average stay for a Prisoner for killing someone (and this includes Manslaughter in addition to Murder) was seven years (it is now much higher) but the average time for a person in an Asylum when he or she had killed someone was 14 years (i.e. almost twice as long). This tend to be the rule in most states and why insanity is rarely used except in capital murder cases.

In most cases the argument is over where should the Defendant go. In the Penn State Shooting rampage of the 1990s the Shooter was arraigned on Capital Murder Charges with the local DA saying he would seek the Death Penalty, but when the DA's own Psychologists came back with they reports he agreed to Third Degree Murder. As part of the deal it was agreed that the Defendant spend her time in a Mental Hospital instead of a Regular jail.

Pennsylvania divides Murder into three degrees of Murder, First Degree, Second Degree (Felony Murder in most other states, which call Felony Murder a Form of First Degree) and Third Degree Murder (The same as Second Degree in most other states).

The point I am trying to make is most people like this woman do NOT need to be in a Prison, where their psychological problems will NOT be addressed and where they subject to victimization by the other inmates who view the insane inmates as easy targets. She does need to be in a Mental home and for a good long while. In fact when such people are scheduled for release a hearing has to be held and often the same prosecutor who decades before claimed at trial the Defendant was NOT insane goes into these hearing claiming the Defendant is still insane.

Thus the argument for the Jury is should the Defendant be Punished (i.e. go to Prison) or be treated (Go to an Asylum for treatment)? She will stay in either place roughly the same time period (and probably spend more time in the Asylum than she would in Jail). That is the REAL question. Will punishing her prevent future such actions (No, insane people will NOT be deterred)? Can be make the little girl whole again by Jailing her Mother (No, for the child is dead)? Are we averaging the family of the Little Girl (No, for her family is the one who did it to her)? Will jailing the mother prevent her from doing this type of crime again(no more than sending her to an Asylum would)?

Remember, Crime Prevention, Crime Deterrence, making people whole and Revenge are the four points of any Criminal Justice System. When you can NOT address these four elements in a Criminal Justice System you have a bad system OR applying the system to that case is bad (In the case in insanity it is the later more than the former). Treating insanity as a NON-criminal action saves the criminal system for people where Crime Prevention, Crime Deterrence, making people whole and Revenge are both addressable and applicable to the case. Remember the purpose of any criminal Justices System is NOT only to prevent Criminal activities (and the above four points) but to keep people united. You can NOT waste resources on cases where Crime Prevention, Crime Deterrence, making people whole and Revenge can NOT be addressed. You just can not address Crime Prevention, Crime Deterrence, making people whole and Revenge when the person who is the Defendant is insane.

[iverglas]

80. what?????

And as such strict liability usually incurs when someone is killed. The rationale behind such strict liability is that merely operating such instrumentality you agree to operate it properly. Thus when someone shots some accidentally the shooter is generally charged with Manslaughter. When someone lose control of his car he is charged with Manslaughter (or homicide by Vehicle in some states).

Okay, I'll use my inside voice. That's just too weird though, I'm afraid.

If the US homicide rates included vehicular crash deaths, well, we'd be lookin' at that old bloodbath.

Strict liability for deaths resulting from vehicle crashes; I've never heard such silliness. Not that it's of the remotest relevance here, but honestly.

You have to make extra effort to show you did everything possible to avoid killing someone if you do not you go to Jail

Have they really abandoned that presumption of innocence business where you're at?


But moving on, yes ...

but the average time for a person in an Asylum when he or she had killed someone was 14 years (i.e. almost twice as long). This tend to be the rule in most states and why insanity is rarely used except in capital murder cases.

I had a client once who had a perfect insanity defence. The charge was food and lodging fraud: eating a meal in a fancy hotel and then not paying for it. Perhaps probation, if anybody'd bothered to prosecute it. Apparently the Queen had whispered in his ear and told him to go eat at the fancy hotel. Sigh; would we have psychoses if we didn't have heads of state?

Just not something you want to get your client put away at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor for.

One major point you omitted about the purpose of the criminal justice system: it is to ensure that people's rights and freedoms are not infringed without justification. Our notion of due process pretty much requires fault before we can go taking people's liberty away punitively, which is what imprisonment is.

We regard taking people's liberty away preventively as unavoidably necessary in some cases to protect others, and thus justified, but for entirely different reasons from the case of punitive deprivation of liberty.

[happyslug]

89. Strict Liability has always existed in the law

And came out of cases involving Guns, Gunpowder and then Trains. If you are moving something that is dangerous and someone is killed be prepared to pay the piper AND to go to jail. As I said in the beginning of my thread Juries and Judges do NOT like the concept but it has been part of our laws for over 500 years. More often than not Juries find the Defendant did all he could do to prevent a death but failing that if the case involves something that is inherently dangerous you better make sure you do everything possible to make sure no one gets killed.

As to a 2000 pound object going 55 miles per hours, if that is not inherently dangerous I do not know what is. Remember the situation is NOT you are driving and someone dies you go to jail, it is if someone dies you have the burden to show you were operating the car in a safe and reasonable manner. The same with a Gun, you are responsible for where that Bullet goes. Thus if someone gets killed off a Shooting range the Range has to show it did all that is reasonable to prevent such shootings (For example fencing in the area behind the target to make sure no one get hit by a stray bullet). The shooter will be held liable if he just shoots instead of aiming where his bullet may go.

Now juries and judges do not like convicting people of such errors bu it happens all the time. You do not hear of it for most people take a plea instead of going to trial (and most DAs take the plea for the DAs have a good chance of losing if the Defendant plays his cards right to the Jury).

I am a believer of the Individual right to bare Arms being listed in the Second Amendment, but that right NEVER extended to banning the concept you are liable for how you MIS-USE a Weapon. This includes not only Criminal use of a Weapon, but legal uses including how it is stored (Provided the storage requirement is not an effort to ban weapons). When someone brought up the right to own Nuclear Weapons I pointed out how can a person own such a weapon and NOT hurt his neighbors by the mere existence of the Weapon? Thus Nuclear weapons are NOT protected under the Second Amendment unless the owner can make sure no one is harmed by its mere storage (Which requires a lot of troops and Concrete and lead lined storage places to make sure it causes no harm to your neighbors). Unlike guns, tanks and even planes (which can be stored without harming your neighbors), the actual explosives must be stored in a way NOT to harm one's neighbors and if not than the person who did not properly store the explosives is liable (and if a danger to society can be banned or heavily restricted as are explosives). Bullets are NOT as dangerous when stored even casual and thus any banned or storage requirement would violate the Second amendment.

My point is to show that if you decide to use or store dangerous items, you will be held liable unless you did everything reasonable to operate or store the item safely. If something goes off, or someone dies do to the operation of the item, the burden is on the owner/user to show he or she did everything reasonable to make sure no such death or injury would occur.

[iverglas]

91. sorry, no

My point is to show that if you decide to use or store dangerous items, you will be held liable unless you did everything reasonable to operate or store the item safely.

CIVILLY liable, not CRIMINALLY responsible, that being what is under discussion here. Really. Not.

There simply has never been strict liability for common law crimes anywhere that I've ever heard of. And there certainly is not in the US -- or, as I pointed out, there would be thousands of homicide charges every year, and presumably quite a lot of convictions, arising out of vehicle crash deaths.

You won't even have STRICT liability civilly, actually. Your duty of care will be high, and extra diligence may be needed in order to fulfil that duty, i.e. not be found negligent. But you simply will not have strict liability. Strict liability in civil law (and in the few instances where it exists in criminal law, usually regulatory penal law) is pretty much a recent, mainly statutory invention.

For criminal offences, FAULT has traditionally ALWAYS been a necessary element of the offence. Fault, i.e. "guilty mind", i.e. mens rea. The fault may indeed be negligence rather than intent, but it must still be proved.

Absolutely no need to get into any blah blah about your second amendment here, much as some folks love to do it.

The question is whether mens rea is required for a conviction on a charge of culpable homicide, and the answer is yes, it is. Criminal responsibility for a death arises only where there is intent or negligence. And that's why people who commit homicide

(a) under a mistaken belief as to a material fact, a belief that they hold as a result of a psychotic delusion and that would have justified the homicide had it been true, or

(b) when they are suffering from a mental disease or disorder that prevents them from appreciating the nature of their act or the difference between "right" and "wrong" in respect of that act

cannot properly be found guilty of homicide.