Wednesday, March 01, 2006

not guilty by reason of insanity

have you heard anything about this Dena Schlosser trial going on in Dallas, TX? Ms. Schlosser cut off the arms of her 10-month old baby, and the baby died. She faced Capital Murder charges in a Plano, TX courtroom, but the trial has recently ended. this is a sickening story. the trial ended due to a hung jury, and i thank the one person who decided that "not guilty by reason of insanity" was not the correct verdict, but that she was guilty. i mean, of course one would probably be classified insane to cut off her own baby's arms and thus killing the child, right? wouldnt someone who intentionally murders be able to claim that at that one point in time they were insane or out of control of their emotions/actions but most of the time they arent like that? so i ask the question...

is it possible that anyone who would commit this act (or similar acts) is not "insane"?

i guess it somewhat comes down to the definition of insanity as identified by the law and court system. people who commit such crimes of this magnitude need to be quarantined from society. why? so they dont do it again. is that not a good enough reason? perhaps they need treatment, but any and all such treatment should be handled behind bars. there should be a merge of psychological treatments/evaluation with the prison system. i believe this would benefit both society and the people who commit such crimes. these convicted murderers should be designated "guilty by reason of insanity". a person is guilty of the crime, regardless if they flew off the handle and had an insane moment. this exemplifies that these people have the capacity to commit such acts and they need to be contained and treated accordingly. whether or not people can be released after treatment would be up to the combination of the Dept of Corrections (familiar with criminal behavior) with the balance of psychiatric professionals who are familiar with the behavior of the insane/dependent. the initial conglomeration of such areas would cost additional money at first, but i have no problem with the small tax hike it would necessitate. get these people help if they need it, but dont give them a bottle of pills after 6 months in a psych hospital and send them back into the public domain. that doesnt seem like a very good idea.


Post a Comment

<< Home