Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,867
Location: The Hoosac tunnel

10 Nov 2014, 6:05 pm

CharityGoodyGrace wrote:
No Large Marge or Big Bertha, unfortunately. She'll be in solitary for sure, to protect her own wretched miserable ass. She'll go insaner in there, and then they'll let her out again and she'll hurt other people.

She needs real help while she's in prison... for as long as she needs it.
im glad someone around here gets my jokes finaly


_________________
Interesting and off beat news stories


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,112
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Nov 2014, 6:52 pm

CharityGoodyGrace wrote:
No Large Marge or Big Bertha, unfortunately. She'll be in solitary for sure, to protect her own wretched miserable ass. She'll go insaner in there, and then they'll let her out again and she'll hurt other people.

She needs real help while she's in prison... for as long as she needs it.


No she needs to not be let out to hurt anyone else.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,867
Location: The Hoosac tunnel

10 Nov 2014, 6:55 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
CharityGoodyGrace wrote:
No Large Marge or Big Bertha, unfortunately. She'll be in solitary for sure, to protect her own wretched miserable ass. She'll go insaner in there, and then they'll let her out again and she'll hurt other people.

She needs real help while she's in prison... for as long as she needs it.


No she needs to not be let out to hurt anyone else.
I don't defend her at all but she is a one time snapper not likely to re offend


_________________
Interesting and off beat news stories


Greenhat
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 96

12 Nov 2014, 8:13 am

Quote:
Jurors found her guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter after her lawyers argued she was overcome by emotion when she killed Jude Mirra and tried to kill herself.

What kind of defense is that?! "I was overcome by emotion when I murdered my kid, so it's OK!" What the hell?! We don't accept that kind of defense for second graders punching each other; why the hell is it acceptable for grown adults murdering their children?!
Quote:
Bogdanos called the killing "deliberate, planned, calculated," noting that as Jude lay dying or dead, Jordan transferred money out of a trust fund for him and arranged to extend her hotel stay.

What the hell. You just killed your kid and you start adjusting your finances as he dies in front of you. Was she overcome by love for her bank account? Because she certainly wasn't overcome by love for her child.
Despicable. Why do we think this is OK?



Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

12 Nov 2014, 1:25 pm

Greenhat wrote:
Quote:
Jurors found her guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter after her lawyers argued she was overcome by emotion when she killed Jude Mirra and tried to kill herself.

What kind of defense is that?! "I was overcome by emotion when I murdered my kid, so it's OK!" What the hell?! We don't accept that kind of defense for second graders punching each other; why the hell is it acceptable for grown adults murdering their children?!
Quote:
Bogdanos called the killing "deliberate, planned, calculated," noting that as Jude lay dying or dead, Jordan transferred money out of a trust fund for him and arranged to extend her hotel stay.

What the hell. You just killed your kid and you start adjusting your finances as he dies in front of you. Was she overcome by love for her bank account? Because she certainly wasn't overcome by love for her child.
Despicable. Why do we think this is OK?


Firstly, that isn't an uncommon defense. It is frequently successful in reducing time for both murder an attempted murder. In America, it's been in the books since the 80's. It started when a women murdered her husband, now it is apparently works for children too. There are quite a few other defenses that could probably be used effectively too...

Why do we think this is ok? I don't think it is. I think anyone who does is a [explicit] [explicit], which is apparently a significant portion of society.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 23,563
Location: Pacific Northwest

12 Nov 2014, 1:49 pm

Protogenoi wrote:
Greenhat wrote:
Quote:
Jurors found her guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter after her lawyers argued she was overcome by emotion when she killed Jude Mirra and tried to kill herself.

What kind of defense is that?! "I was overcome by emotion when I murdered my kid, so it's OK!" What the hell?! We don't accept that kind of defense for second graders punching each other; why the hell is it acceptable for grown adults murdering their children?!
Quote:
Bogdanos called the killing "deliberate, planned, calculated," noting that as Jude lay dying or dead, Jordan transferred money out of a trust fund for him and arranged to extend her hotel stay.

What the hell. You just killed your kid and you start adjusting your finances as he dies in front of you. Was she overcome by love for her bank account? Because she certainly wasn't overcome by love for her child.
Despicable. Why do we think this is OK?


Firstly, that isn't an uncommon defense. It is frequently successful in reducing time for both murder an attempted murder. In America, it's been in the books since the 80's. It started when a women murdered her husband, now it is apparently works for children too. There are quite a few other defenses that could probably be used effectively too...

Why do we think this is ok? I don't think it is. I think anyone who does is a [explicit] [explicit], which is apparently a significant portion of society.



Why did that woman murder her husband?


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

12 Nov 2014, 4:27 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Why did that woman murder her husband?


Oh, he abused her. I don't know how or to what extent. She did some horrific vigilante justice. Burned him alive I believe... If the abuse was proven, then yeah, reduced time would be acceptable for that case. I don't know. But that's when it first went on the books. It's changed a bit over the years. Yep, it started with the battered woman defense (which is a good defense) and they added an additional 10 or 11 emotional distress charges since then.
One of my relatives was a Vietnam Vet who was crippled to the point of losing both his legs and required an oxygen tank. In the 90's His wife attempted to kill him four times. After each time he was hospitalized and no one believed him. On the fourth time she stabbed him several times. In court she got off entirely using one of her two defenses. The battered woman defense (even though he had limited use of his arms, and so this one was thrown out of court) and an additional emotional distress defense (she said that he was in the wrong for not dying in the war and that she didn't deserve to have to take care of him.) She got custody of the kids shortly afterwards. My cousins (his kids) have since claimed that she physically beat him up routinely as well as abused the children once he was gone.

The defense that is used by many mothers who kill their (non-infant) children is sometimes called the "Mother Don't Kill Defense." It basically goes like this. Mothers don't kill their children. The mother killed her children. Therefore there must be some outside force that caused her to kill her children. It must have been for the good of the children. Therefore, the mother acted reasonably, if not rightly.