Texas Mother

[Cindy Hamlin]

Karen,
I am still thinking about your question. Is the death penalty a deterrent? I don't think so. Look at TX, a hard-core death penalty state and yet the crime rate continues to soar! I think that stiffening the penalties and making prisoners work to pay restitution is the answer!

Here in Richmond we have a program called project exile. It has gotten a lot of national attention and has dropped the murder rate tremendously. It makes a mandatory jail sentence for anyone who commits a felony with a gun or had committed a crime and is caught with a gun! It is mandatory jail time. It has seemed to do the trick. I don't believe it works in all instances. Look at the effect the mandatory sentences had on drug felons. Little if any.

I think we must get more rigid in our prosecuting and sentencing and adopt a no deal philosophy! If people know they have an easy out it makes the crime more appealing. I am all for mandatory sentencing if it keeps the criminals in check. The only draw back is that it hurts the innocent.

I don't think we will ever find an easy answer. I pray one day we will!

~Cindy

[Darris Chambless]

Hello Karen,

Yes, dear if we were not happily married we would probably be an item ;-)

I can answer your question from my perspective. The death penalty should not be a deterrent as it is the "punishment" for a crime as set by the laws of a state or jurisdiction. The "deterrent" should be the law itself, but unfortunately has become more of a joke than anything else. If laws were enforced like they should be you wouldn't have half of the problems we are faced with today.

If a person new that the law would be upheld in a criminal case and the punishment under that law were more than the potential perpetrator was willing to give up, then you would have a deterrent. I think that is where many people get a little confused where people like myself come in. Many feel that we want the death penalty upheld as an example others. That would be the equivalent of smacking the guy sitting next to you as a warning to the guy across the table. It serves no fundamental purpose. The death penalty is the end result of a law being upheld based on the circumstances, nothing more.

I watched "Of Mice and Men" this weekend (I liked the book much better but the movie wasn't bad) Here was a situation where you have a grown man that doesn't have the mental faculties to understand what he's doing and can't do anything without being told how. He killed a woman accidentally because he was afraid she would tell George and he wouldn't get to tend the rabbits. Tending rabbits meant everything to him and was all he could think about so it became a passion. George new that this could happen at any time regardless especially since it WAS an accident. But how many accidents had to happen before it became a valid problem? They could have run just like they had been, but George knew it wouldn't do any good. He killed his long time friend because it was necessary to protect others.

The death penalty that George carried out wasn't done out of malice. It was done because it was the right thing to do. The lives of others would no longer be in danger and the threat eliminated for the innocent, unsuspecting would be's.

Murders murder out of malice regardless of mental status. Their purpose is to kill. The death penalty is the punished levied by the law and has to be taken under consideration by rational persons on the jury (not always the brightest candles burning, but rational minded at the time anyway ;)

That's my answer. Hope you like it :)

Darris "Always thinking" C.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Darris,
I too saw the movie "Of Mice and Men" and never quite saw it that way. I agree with you that his friend killed him so he wouldn't kill others! Rather simplistic, but it illustrates the reason for the death penalty!

I have noticed how many people have read the thread and not posted. I wish they would enter into the discussion. I am curious what a larger section of the population thinks!

~Cindy

[Blake]

Cindy,

Okay, I confess... I've been following this thread since it started, but am only now putting my two cents in. This is mainly because I didn't know what to make of the whole situation. I mean, the woman is obviously a few fries short of a happy meal, but that does not in and of itself relieve her of responsibility for her actions.
Fortunately, she will not be judged by a poll, but by a judge and jury. Thus, the prosecutor will have to prove, beyond a "reasonable doubt", that she deserves whatever punishment is sought. Her lawyers, in turn, will have a chance to make the case that she is not guilty by reason of insanity.
The downside is that juries can make mistakes (can we say O.J.?). As Darris said, sometimes it comes down to which side puts on the best show. As a result, sometimes the guilty go free, and sometimes the innocent get convicted. The solution to the latter, however, is not to simply abolish the death penalty and then pat ourselves on the back because we choose to put innocent people in a cage for the rest of their lives. We instead need to find ways to reform the system so that the innocent are not convicted, and the guilty receive their due. That is justice!
As far as the woman in Houston is concerned, I'm sure there is more to the story than we're hearing. But I do know that if I hear anyone else call her a "good mother", I am going to vomit. Literally.
If the people who consider all the evidence (the jury) decide she must pay with her life, and it's not overturned on appeal, then I say let her fry...

Sorry to be so long winded. Besides too much Law and Order, I'm also engaged to a lawyer!

:bbg:



Blake

[Cindy Hamlin]

Originally posted by Blake
As far as the woman in Houston is concerned, I'm sure there is more to the story than we're hearing. But I do know that if I hear anyone else call her a "good mother", I am going to vomit. Literally.

Blake,
I agree! I do believe their had to be issues. She couldn't have been to the place her friend kept a diary because she was worried about her emotional state and yet she kept all her mommy faculties about her. I cannot believe that!
~Cindy

[mullo]

It is difficult to judge what should happen unless we have all of the points. The judge and jury will hopefully have all of this and make the correct decision based on the info. I still think she should pay the price of her own life based on the info I have seen. But as I said, I probably haven't seen the half of it.....Mullo

[Bev Heishman]

I agree with Darris that the husband is just as accountable in this situation or:

1. oblivious that his wife truly had a problem until this occured.
2. thought she was imagining having a problem.

3. needs did not matter because for some religious purpose her role in life was to bear children and care for his needs.

If my husband had killed my children I would not be as calm as this man appears to be. I would probably be in jail for taking "care" of him.

[marblez]

:angry: This subject just makes me so mad............


I have problems believing mental illness lets people get off (any crimes) because they 'can't tell right from wrong"


If you drown five children and then place them into a back bedroom you have planned these murder and you know what you are doing. If this woman( I won't call her a lady)could chase down her oldest and force him into the tub next to his sister she is now a torturor as well as a murderer.

Should people with mental illness be treated differently? This is the question actually, isn't it?

If the words mental illness were not mentioned, what would everyone think then? I can tell you I have had to think like this for a long time due to a family mental illness. I don't think my family member should get off for her crimes because she is Bi polar. Not only did she several times but will not get disablity because of it. I love her to death, but I for one don't want this country to go that way. All sorts of crimanals would use mental illness as a reason to get out of life in prision, the dealth penalty, long sentences etc.

There needs to be better and more research into mental health and its affects on crime. It also needs to find out of those with mental illness can function better in the world.

I voted to have her face the death penalty.

By the way I have never been a mom and that should not make a differnce.


Christina

[Jim G]

If it isn't obvious now, it will be soon, that I am not a lawyer. Having said that, I feel compelled to add some thoughts re: insanity as a defense. While I would totallly agree that one would have to be "crazy" to murder someone, the legal definition and use of insanity as a defense is not easly accomplished. There is a huge legal and medical burden to accomplish before the plea can even be entered; then it is up to the jury and or judge to accept it.

We are a nation of laws and, the insanity defence is accepted in all states. This is based upon moral judgements that it is improper to convict a person for a crime while legally insane as that person truely does not know right from wrong...let alone the ramifications of their act(s). The same reasoning is used when applying the law to children (when a person is a child or an adult is established by local authority and, is changing). The notion that insanity can easily be faked is primarily that of movies and novels. On the other hand, true insanity is a death penalty in its own right; the original inhabitant of the body no longer exists.

IF she was legally insane, she should be tried as such and committed for treatment; whether she can regain any normalcy and eventual release is a separate issue.

IF she was NOT legally insane, she should be tried according to the laws of her state (in MN, there is no death penalty so the argument would be specious). In TX, obviously, this could incur the death penalty.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Jim,
You bring up an interesting side note. It is a rigorous process to have someone declared legally insane. True, it must go before the judge and jurors. I find it hard to believe they can find anyone unbiased about this. They may say they aren't, but common sense must tell us there are preconceived notions about her.

I think if she had only drown one child, then possibly we could cut her slack. But that many children and chasing the oldest child down! I agree with the others in the posts that she had to plan and calculate this. It must have been a horrible way to die, to have you own mother push you under water! I think she put them into bed after she killed them so the children wouldn't know what was ahead for them. If their bodies were there in the bathroom, then it would be more difficult for the children to succumb to their mother's plans!

I, for one, hope they convict her and put her to death. True, she may be mentally ill but can we believe in all good conscience that she will never do it again? No!

~Cindy

[Jim G]

Cindy, you bring up a most salient point regarding the frailties of people and the jury system. I have sat on two juries and am, at best, disallusioned. However, what would you suggest as an alternative?

In case you haven't had the privilege/expereince of being on a criminal jury trial, the "safety valve" is the instructions given by the judge explaining, in (morbid) detail, how the law applies to the case in particular and what can or cannot be used as evidence and the charges that may be applicable (i.e. manslaughter, 1st or 2nd degree murder, innocent, innocent by reason of insanity, etc.). IF the jury reads, understands and adheres to the instructions faithfully, justice will be served.

Juries occasionally even go beyond the law in establishing what may be a "correct" judgement rather than the "right" judgement. Case in point recently was the sentencing of the terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center to life rather than death (certainly justified) inasmuch as that would have made him into a martyr and possibly encouraged further terroristic acts.

This system has evolved from Maria's ancestors base into what is unarguably the best in the world. Can it be improved? You bet. But, I'll ask again, what would you suggest as an alternative?

[Cindy Hamlin]

Jim,
I think the only alternative is the judgement she will one day face when she gets to meet her children again! She must look into those precious eyes and tell them why! That is the only acceptable penalty in my eyes! If we must hasten that meeting than so be it!

I have never served on a jury, but have been on the receiving end of their verdict (see earlier post). I can say that I do not envy those people. They have the hardest job! I cannot fathom how they could be impartial. I think there will be a lot of emotions playing into it. Especially if there are mothers on the jury!

I, too, cannot understand her husband not getting involved before the fact and now wanting to help after the fact! He had to know she was in trouble! Dear God, he was there daily! He knew she was a danger to herself and had attempted suicide and yet he chose to leave her alone with the children. Amazing! I guess he feels he has to step up now as he didn't step up before!

~Cindy