Toddler stabbed to death in Dublin

Silver Lynel

Grayson wrote: »

I actually googled her name and it came up with a load of articles that stated she was iraqi.

So, I'm right when I say I don't know anything and apparently neither do the papers.

(Btw, it was the indo that said Iraqi.

So?

At 12:40 you posted information here that she was understood to be Iranian.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104063015&postcount=176

At 12:48 you were giving out here because people were saying she was Iranian.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104063095&postcount=184

You were one of the ones sharing the information that she was Iranian!

You are even shameless enough to say to other people "if you are going to mention it, get it right".

Grayson

Silver Lynel wrote: »

So?

At 12:40 you posted information here that she was understood to be Iranian.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104063015&postcount=176

At 12:48 you were giving out here because people were saying she was Iranian.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104063095&postcount=184

You were one of the ones sharing the information that she was Iranian!

You are even shameless enough to say to other people "if you are going to mention it, get it right".

So for the second time on this page I'm going to say I was wrong. I won't explain why because I've already supplied the links that made me think she was Iraqi.

Now once again...

I WAS WRONG (That's the third time).

If that doesn't satisfy your thirst then may I suggest taking a nice walk in the sunshine.

(And the nuts thing is that we still don't know if she was Iraqi or Iranian since we have articles stating both).

Edit: (I just read a bio of her in the Irish Times. they're saying Iraqi. They say she went to college in Basra.)

The_Kew_Tour

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Such a tragedy. I don't mind admitting I spent a bit of time holding my toddler after reading about this, despite his objections. It's sad that people use something like this to push their agendas on gender politics and religion. What the **** is wrong with someone that they hear about a three year old being stabbed to death and their first thought is about how she will get a lesser punishment than a man?

Well it sends out a message that you will be punished for a horrific crime.

Would you like if somebody close to you had the guilty person given soft sentence cause they had mental problems or over gender?.

Nobody is pushing agendas just people want the justice this poor kid who died deserves. It does not bring them back but it might help another life and might make somebody think twice.

optogirl

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well it sends out a message that you will be punished for a horrific crime.

Would you like if somebody close to you had the guilty person given soft sentence cause they had mental problems or over gender?.

Nobody is pushing agendas just people want the justice this poor kid who died deserves. It does not bring them back but it might help another life and might make somebody think twice.

Where are the laws stating a sentence can be reduced based on a person's gender?

screamer

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Nobody is pushing agendas just people want the justice this poor kid who died deserves. It does not bring them back but it might help another life and might make somebody think twice.

To be fair even the thought of inflicting pain on their own child should be deterrent enough for any parent. I doubt the thoughts of a lengthy jail term would make them think twice........

Grayson

optogirl wrote: »

Where are the laws stating a sentence can be reduced based on a person's gender?

There are certain countries..... but let's not bring that up here.


Statistically though, in the US at least, women receive shorter sentences then men. There's one exception though and that's murder. Women convicted of murder in the US generally receive higher sentences.

I don't know what the stats are for Ireland.

It is good to be aware of the stats though. If there is some kind of societal inclination to give someone a higher/lower sentence based on gender than it's something that judges should be aware of so they can factor it in.

Glenster

Grayson wrote: »

So for the second time on this page I'm going to say I was wrong. I won't explain why because I've already supplied the links that made me think she was Iraqi.

Now once again...

I WAS WRONG (That's the third time).

If that doesn't satisfy your thirst then may I suggest taking a nice walk in the sunshine.

(And the nuts thing is that we still don't know if she was Iraqi or Iranian since we have articles stating both).

Edit: (I just read a bio of her in the Irish Times. they're saying Iraqi. They say she went to college in Basra.)

I think people just generally get annoyed when someone says "It doesn't matter, but you're wrong." Particularly when that person doesn't know any better.

Take it as a lesson about not treating online interaction as a competition or a points scoring exercise.

The_Kew_Tour

optogirl wrote: »

Where are the laws stating a sentence can be reduced based on a person's gender?

Never said they're laws in place.

Game Face MCGee

optogirl wrote: »

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well it sends out a message that you will be punished for a horrific crime.

Would you like if somebody close to you had the guilty person given soft sentence cause they had mental problems or over gender?.

Nobody is pushing agendas just people want the justice this poor kid who died deserves. It does not bring them back but it might help another life and might make somebody think twice.

Where are the laws stating a sentence can be reduced based on a person's gender?

there's no law, woman just get lighter sentences than men across all crimes,
back to topic...

I hope this tragedy doesn't get overshadowed by the mental health lobby. the bitch will be out in a few months if they get their way, poor divel has mental health issues my ass, if you kill your own kid you not fit for society.

optogirl

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

there's no law, woman just get lighter sentences than men across all crimes,
back to topic...

I hope this tragedy doesn't get overshadowed by the mental health lobby. the bitch will be out in a few months if they get their way, poor divel has mental health issues my ass, if you kill your own kid you not fit for society.

It's not as simple as that - sentences take mitigating factors into account although I accept that society is generally more surprised by a serious crime committed by a woman, in particular murder, because it's so much rarer. No doubt judges & juries are just as susceptible to inherent bias here.

Omackeral

In Ireland, women need to be pretty bad eggs to go to prison. Judges will do their best to spare them custodial sentences if they can. Now a mitigating factor in this is that space is a problem, we only have two prisons that house women in the entire country, Mountjoy Dochas and Limerick. In fact, Limerick has just one wing, probably capable of holding around 50. Even the female prison in Mountjoy is a lot more therapeutic than its male counterpart. The inmates are referred to as women and not prisoners, they have rooms and not cells and they have their own keys to the doors. Again, it's most likely a case of societal factors at play. Before anyone starts with gender bashing accusations, this is just how it is. I work in the prison system and have worked in both male and female prisons and those are the differences.

Kimbot

Omackeral wrote: »

In Ireland, women need to be pretty bad eggs to go to prison. Judges will do their best to spare them custodial sentences if they can. Now a mitigating factor in this is that space is a problem, we only have two prisons that house women in the entire country, Mountjoy Dochas and Limerick. In fact, Limerick has just one wing, probably capable of holding around 50. Even the female prison in Mountjoy is a lot more therapeutic than its male counterpart. The inmates are referred to as women and not prisoners, they have rooms and not cells and they have their own keys to the doors. Again, it's most likely a case of societal factors at play. Before anyone starts with gender bashing accusations, this is just how it is. I work in the prison system and have worked in both male and female prisons and those are the differences.

I can confirm you are indeed 100% correct and its far from gender bashing. Sure doesnt the dochas have "Blue rooms" for their time outs?

optogirl

jonnycivic wrote: »

I can confirm you are indeed 100% correct and its far from gender bashing. Sure doesnt the dochas have "Blue rooms" for their time outs?

Don't think anyone is disagreeing or crying 'gender bashing'. I wish all our prisons were making strides to be more humane & rehabilitative

Kimbot

optogirl wrote: »

Don't think anyone is disagreeing or crying 'gender bashing'. I wish all our prisons were making strides to be more humane & rehabilitative

They actually are, under the new Director General he has taken a more Rehabilitation approach to prisoners and will continue to do so.

Ann_Landers

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

If she did do it why are people feeling sorry for her, but called out a man from Cavan who killed himself and his family.

Why do rules differ?

Murder is Murder be it man or woman

Personally, I reserved judgement on Alan Hawes for the first few days until it was more clear what happened and I'm doing the same here. I'm not feeling great sympathy for the mother yet because I don't know the circumstances yet.

I do think that you and others who are determined to make this about gender don't tend to want to consider things like the fact that a lot of people were unsure what to think of Alan Hawes in the first few days after it happened, much like in this case. And in fact, he was spoken about in glowing terms in the first few days. That hasn't happened to this women. It's just like, nope, straight to the gender wars! I mean, it's clearly the most important thing, right?

Ann_Landers

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'd personally rather meet the op of that post than someone who'd take a knife to a three year old. That's just me though, I'd be odd like that.

It's just as well I never compared the two or said I'd be happy to tango with a toddler-murderer then, isn't it? Two separate things, completely.

suicide_circus

jonnycivic wrote: »

I can confirm you are indeed 100% correct and its far from gender bashing. Sure doesnt the dochas have "Blue rooms" for their time outs?

Time outs? Do they get sent to the naughty step as well?

Captain Obvious

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well it sends out a message that you will be punished for a horrific crime.

Would you like if somebody close to you had the guilty person given soft sentence cause they had mental problems or over gender?.

Nobody is pushing agendas just people want the justice this poor kid who died deserves. It does not bring them back but it might help another life and might make somebody think twice.

Shouldn't that criticism be held off until the thing you are criticising actually happens?

The_Kew_Tour

Ann_Landers wrote: »

That hasn't happened to this women. It's just like, nope, straight to the gender wars! I mean, it's clearly the most important thing, right?

No its not.

Im not making it a no 1 issue. All im saying is that murder is murder.

I did also state "if" she did it.

Game Face MCGee

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well it sends out a message that you will be punished for a horrific crime.

Would you like if somebody close to you had the guilty person given soft sentence cause they had mental problems or over gender?.

Nobody is pushing agendas just people want the justice this poor kid who died deserves. It does not bring them back but it might help another life and might make somebody think twice.

Shouldn't that criticism be held off until the thing you are criticising actually happens?

its too late to close the gate when the horse has bolted, this murderer can not be allowed hide behind mental health for tis crime. no sympathy should be given.

Grayson

I've just checked the latest stories on the Irish Times and the Indo. neither say the mother has been charged.

The stories I read earlier had the garda statement about a woman in her 40's being charged and the articles said it was the mother. There's no continuity between the stories.

Omackeral

Grayson wrote: »

I've just checked the latest stories on the Irish Times and the Indo. neither say the mother has been charged.

The stories I read earlier had the garda statement about a woman in her 40's being charged and the articles said it was the mother. There's no continuity between the stories.

These links from today say the mother has been arrested, not charged. If the police said they're not looking for anyone else that would probably suggest she'll be charged or psychologically evaluated anyway before anything else happens.

http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/mum-toddler-stabbed-death-kimmage-13319226

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1256875/mum-of-little-boy-3-found-stabbed-at-kimmage-apartment-arrested-in-connection-with-his-death/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/boy-3-was-beautiful-and-chatty-shocked-kimmage-locals-say-1.3150672

Muir

Grayson wrote: »

I've just checked the latest stories on the Irish Times and the Indo. neither say the mother has been charged.

The stories I read earlier had the garda statement about a woman in her 40's being charged and the articles said it was the mother. There's no continuity between the stories.

Would you mind linking to these stories? I can't find anything to say anyone has been charged.

Also, from the Irish Times on Monday, the Gardai were waiting to speak with the mother and there was no sign of a break in or struggle at the apartment.

hatrickpatrick

Personally, I am pre-judging this case. Now obviously the person who has been arrested is innocent until proven guilty. However. The individual who attacked that child with a knife is a 100% irredeemable evil scumbag. All that needs to be proven in my view is who actually did it, and innocent until proven guilty should of course apply - but in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned, the only relevant factor should be determining who's hand was holding the knife at the time and whether they were under immediate physical duress (IE, was somebody literally pointing a gun or other knife at them under threat of instant death if they didn't follow orders) - if the answer to that question is a no, then the person who was holding the knife should go to jail until their dying breath, no ifs, no buts.

No level of psychiatric difficulty can justify taking the life of an innocent third party. None.

EDIT: On the gender issue, of course there's an appalling double standard in Western society in general when it comes to violent crime, but that's not the biggest issue with such cases in Ireland - in Ireland, whether you're male or female, you're likely to get sentenced lightly because our courts simply don't have the balls to openly state that some individuals are incompatible with society and don't deserve a bajillionth chance - I'm talking about scumbags like those involved in the Kinahan v Hutch feud who seem to always have previous convictions in the double digits when they're finally caught. If they had been locked up much earlier, when it became clear that they had no interest in becoming decent citizens, this feud and others like it would never have happened. Ireland's courts need to cop on.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

And you've met both murderers and assessed them to ascertain between plain evil and mental illness to decide why each of them might choose to end their children's lives in an incredibly violent manner?

Er, no.

I said I wouldn't be surprised if this woman had a mental illness, because that's a prima facie assumption I make when a child kills a parent, or vice versa. It's a well-documented phenomenon.

I made the same assumption when I heard about the Hawe family killings, but since that event, a lot of information has emerged which would seem to attenuate that assumption.

I don't know what mental illness, or disorder, either killer was living with.

Nor did I claim that. You just jumped to conclusions.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Schizophrenia is another excuse.

An excuse? Schizophrenia is a legitimate, serious mental illness which can render in individual so mentally incapacitated that they are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

allthedoyles

There has been a few cases previous , not in Ireland where mothers have killed their autistic child .
This mother might use this as justification too .

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

There's plenty of people with mental illness and skitzophrenia that aren't murdering scumbags, mental illness doesn't make you an evil person. Murdering a toddler does.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally, I am pre-judging this case. Now obviously the person who has been arrested is innocent until proven guilty. However. The individual who attacked that child with a knife is a 100% irredeemable evil scumbag. All that needs to be proven in my view is who actually did it, and innocent until proven guilty should of course apply - but in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned, the only relevant factor should be determining who's hand was holding the knife at the time and whether they were under immediate physical duress (IE, was somebody literally pointing a gun or other knife at them under threat of instant death if they didn't follow orders) - if the answer to that question is a no, then the person who was holding the knife should go to jail until their dying breath, no ifs, no buts.

No level of psychiatric difficulty can justify taking the life of an innocent third party. None.

Rubbish. For a start no one is saying it's justifying it, only perhaps explaining it. An important distinction.

Wasn't a guy found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity recently in Ireland? He was found not guilty because he was so seriously ill that he couldn't be held accountable for his actions, and he was rightly given the treatment and care he needed. There is no way someone so very sick can be dismissed as just evil and packed off to prison without the proper care.

I've no idea if this is a similar situation or if the person who did that terrible thing is just plain evil, but if they're so sick that they're not responsible for their actions and their doctor advises the court that this is the case, I'm not going to decide I know better and demand they're branded evil and sent to prison instead of hospital.

I don't believe in branding sick people scumbags and satisfying some lust for revenge by treating them the same as someone who commits some horrific act in full possession of their senses and in full knowledge of the import of their actions.

hatrickpatrick

kylith wrote: »

Hawe got plenty of sympathy until it was realised that he was compos mentis when he killed his family.

And he shouldn't have.

Why not withhold judgement until we find out exactly what happened with this case?

We know that a child got stabbed to death - that doesn't seem to be in dispute. Ergo, somebody out there is the rotten, vile scumbag who did it. I haven't seen any suggestion that he did it to himself. Is that not a fair conclusion? I'm not assuming guilt on any individual's part until somebody has been conclusively proven to have been the person holding the knife, but as I said, somebody out there is the vile scumbag responsible. And absolutely nothing can change their status as a vile scumbag - an act such as this can have absolutely no relevant mitigating factors or sob stories.

The_Kew_Tour

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

An excuse? Schizophrenia is a legitimate, serious mental illness which can render in individual so mentally incapacitated that they are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

Then it begs the question of why she was able to raise a child before

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Rubbish. For a start no one is saying it's justifying it, only perhaps explaining it. An important distinction.

It might explain it. That doesn't mean somebody shouldn't go to jail over it.

Wasn't a guy found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity recently in Ireland? He was found not guilty because he was so seriously ill that he couldn't be held accountable for his actions, and he was rightly given the treatment and care he needed. There is no way someone so very sick can be dismissed as just evil and packed off to prison without the proper care.

I've no idea if this is a similar situation or if the person who did that terrible thing is just plain evil, but if they're so sick that they're not responsible for their actions and their doctor advises the court that this is the case, I'm not going to decide I know better and demand they're branded evil and sent to prison instead of hospital.

I don't believe in branding sick people scumbags and satisfying some lust for revenge by treating them the same as someone who commits some horrific act in full possession of their senses and in full knowledge of the import of their actions.

You're referring to this guy:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-found-not-guilty-of-murder-of-girlfriend-by-reason-of-insanity-1.3146684

If they're insane and so dangerously so that they would kill a person without realising they were doing it, then they should still be locked up for life - in an institution as opposed to prison, sure. But they shouldn't be free to walk the streets ever again after committing an act as vile as this. I don't care why he did it, that guy is a danger to society. As is the person who killed this kid today.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If they're insane and so dangerously so that they would kill a person without realising they were doing it, then they should still be locked up for life - in an institution as opposed to prison, sure. But they shouldn't be free to walk the streets ever again after committing an act as vile as this. I don't care why he did it, that guy is a danger to society. As is the person who killed this kid today.

Yes they need treatment and care, but you don't get to label people that sick as just evil scumbags.

We're slightly more enlightened these days, most people don't demand the same punishment for the seriously ill and cold blooded killers in full possession of their senses and in complete recognition of what they're doing. There is a huge difference between the two.

Serious mental illness isn't a 'sob story'. You sound incredibly ignorant.

Muir

It's actually really upsetting to see how some people view these serious mental illnesses. I'm actually amazed that so many people have gotten so far in life without having experienced dealing with it, I must be pretty unlucky.

I shed a few tears earlier when I passed the apartments where this poor child was killed, and I'm doing the same now reading some of the comments here.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

Yes they need treatment and care, but you don't get to label people that sick as just evil scumbags.

We're slightly more enlightened these days, most people don't demand the same punishment for the seriously ill and cold blooded killers in full possession of their senses and in complete recognition of what they're doing. There is a huge difference between the two.

Fair enough - in the very specific case of a severe schizoid type mental illness which causes total detachment from reality, the individual is not a total scumbag but still a danger to society. However, in the case of other mental illnesses which nonetheless do not impair the ability to tell right from wrong, they are indeed a total scumbag.

I personally regard schizoid type mental illness as being unusual enough to not be the default assumption in murder cases. My default assumption is that the person who did it is a scumbag, and only in a very tiny number of specific circumstances would I change my view on that.

To give a specific analogous example, there have been cases of suicidal people killing their children before taking their own lives, on the presumed grounds that their kids would suffer without them around - that, to me, is an example of the kind of mental illness which does not absolve somebody of the scumbag label for having killed an innocent child. Without the presence of other psychiatric disorders, I will continue to regard such people as scumbags.

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, but I have a fairly universal zero patience policy when it comes to taking the life of another human being. And I say that as somebody who has himself dealt with severe depression and suicidal thoughts in the past - I would never have dreamt of taking anybody down with me, because that at the very best would make me a self-centred asshole (assuming my reasoning was that their life would be sh!te without me in it - no, I don't get to make that call and nor does anybody else)

The_Kew_Tour

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Then it begs the question of why she was able to raise a child before

Have you seriously just now heard of schizophrenia, or something?

Schizophrenia tends to arise later in life amongst women, and in both genders, can be linked to traumatic events or the domestic environment. It isn't unusual for someone to be diagnosed with a psychotic illness in their twenties, and never come to the attention of law enforcement until years later during a psychotic episode.

Of course, it deserves to be said that whilst psychosis can render an individual incapacitated for the purposes of a criminal trial, we have to emphasise that most people with psychosis are not dangerous. Several Nobel-prize winners have lived with schizophrenia, but we do have a sizeable prison population with the illness, too.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I personally regard schizoid type mental illness as being unusual enough to not be the default assumption in murder cases. My default assumption is that the person who did it is a scumbag, and only in a very tiny number of specific circumstances would I change my view on that.

The reason I personally make that assumption, is because of a conversation I once had with a psychiatrist, who told me that any time he hears about a violent familicide in the media, his first assumption is of a psychotic illness.

I haven't got any stats to hand, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable first assumption.

hatrickpatrick

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Have you seriously just now heard of schizophrenia, or something?

Schizophrenia tends to arise later in life amongst women, and in both genders, can be linked to traumatic events or the domestic environment. It isn't unusual for someone to be diagnosed with a psychotic illness in their twenties, and never come to the attention of law enforcement until years later during a psychotic episode.

Of course, it deserves to be said that whilst psychosis can render an individual incapacitated for the purposes of a criminal trial, we have to emphasise that most people with psychosis are not dangerous. Several Nobel-prize winners have lived with schizophrenia, but we do have a sizeable prison population with the illness, too.

It generally doesn't appear out of nowhere in an instant, however.

If you accept that there's always a risk with schizoid disorders of having a psychotic episode and doing something like this, then what's your solution? Should people be placed under automatic surveillance as soon as it's diagnosed? Should treatment be mandatory? Should they not be allowed to be sole carers of dependents? Or should we just accept the idea that some individuals are known to be ticking time bombs who might take an innocent person's life for no reason at any moment and that this is simply a part of human society we have to put up with?

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair enough - in the very specific case of a severe schizoid type mental illness which causes total detachment from reality, the individual is not a total scumbag but still a danger to society. However, in the case of other mental illnesses which nonetheless do not impair the ability to tell right from wrong, they are indeed a total scumbag.

I personally regard schizoid type mental illness as being unusual enough to not be the default assumption in murder cases. My default assumption is that the person who did it is a scumbag, and only in a very tiny number of specific circumstances would I change my view on that.

To give a specific analogous example, there have been cases of suicidal people killing their children before taking their own lives, on the presumed grounds that their kids would suffer without them around - that, to me, is an example of the kind of mental illness which does not absolve somebody of the scumbag label for having killed an innocent child. Without the presence of other psychiatric disorders, I will continue to regard such people as scumbags.

Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, but I have a fairly universal zero patience policy when it comes to taking the life of another human being. And I say that as somebody who has himself dealt with severe depression and suicidal thoughts in the past - I would never have dreamt of taking anybody down with me, because that at the very best would make me a self-centred asshole (assuming my reasoning was that their life would be sh!te without me in it - no, I don't get to make that call and nor does anybody else)

I'll leave the diagnosis to the doctors involved and let them decide whether or not someone is an evil murderous scumbag or a seriously ill person in need of care.

You are of course free to call people evil scumbags and demand they be sent to prison for the rest of their lives, regardless of the facts.

Your experiences, tough as they were, have zero to do with any other scenario. These things are judged alone, as they should be.

hatrickpatrick

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The reason I personally make that assumption, is because of a conversation I once had with a psychiatrist, who told me that any time he hears about a violent familicide in the media, his first assumption is of a psychotic illness.

I haven't got any stats to hand, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable first assumption.

I've heard enough stories of serious domestic violence to not believe this. Some people are psychologically unwell, but some people simply have anger management issues which absolutely should not qualify them to get off the hook of responsibility when they lash out. And unfortunately, people in that latter group are more common than you'd think - and tend to be prematurely absolved in cases like this by the public because of the bias towards assuming mental illness, as you've pointed out. Alan Hawes is probably the most recent example of this but there have been plenty.

hatrickpatrick

Candie wrote: »

I'll leave the diagnosis to the doctors involved and let them decide whether or not someone is an evil murderous scumbag or a seriously ill person in need of care.

So will I. But either way, I believe that individual should be removed from public society for the safety of everybody else in it.

You are of course free to call people evil scumbags and demand they be sent to prison for the rest of their lives, regardless of the facts.

The fact here is that an innocent child was killed in cold blood and in an extraordinarily violent manner. That is not in dispute. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that somebody who is capable of that - whether because of mental illness or because of anger management issues and just being a jerk - is somebody who should not be put into a position in which they can do anything like this again.

Your experiences, tough as they were, have zero to do with any other scenario. These things are judged alone, as they should be.

I made that comment in response to Muir's "you obviously haven't experienced it yourself" comment - I have, and it hasn't changed my views at all.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It generally doesn't appear out of nowhere in an instant, however.

Of course not. And even if this woman was suffering from a psychotic illness, it would be probable that this was not the first manifestation, if that is indeed the case.

If you accept that there's always a risk with schizoid disorders of having a psychotic episode and doing something like this, then what's your solution? Should people be placed under automatic surveillance as soon as it's diagnosed?

Of course not. just because individuals with psychotic illness are disproportionately highly-represented amongst perpetrators of family-homicide, it's quite a leap to even imply that most individuals with psychotic illness are violent, let alone capable of killing.

I mean no disrespect, but I can't imagine what you were even thinking by asking that question. It's a bit like looking at African-American crime statistics and asking "should all African Americans be surveilled?"

It's an incredibly daft question.

Muir

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Then it begs the question of why she was able to raise a child before

Someone can develop psychosis for a number of reasons - so it can be a symptom of Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, it can be due to drug use, it can be as a result of a traumatic event or occur postpartum. This means it's something that can just happen, even to you or any of the rest of us. In those already diagnosed with Schizophrenia for example, they are not constantly in a state of psychosis, some people respond well to treatment and live a normal live without many psychotic episodes, some don't, sometimes the medication stops working and has to be changed.

There are an infinite number of reasons and possibilities.

Muir

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I made that comment in response to Muir's "you obviously haven't experienced it yourself" comment - I have, and it hasn't changed my views at all.

I wasn't talking about depression or suicidal thoughts - I'm talking about psychosis, where someone has become detached from reality. Also, I'm sorry you went through that & glad you made it through.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So will I. But either way, I believe that individual should be removed from public society for the safety of everybody else in it.



The fact here is that an innocent child was killed in cold blood and in an extraordinarily violent manner. That is not in dispute. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that somebody who is capable of that - whether because of mental illness or because of anger management issues and just being a jerk - is somebody who should not be put into a position in which they can do anything like this again.

NObody is saying people shouldn't be kept safely away from endangering others while they're seriously ill. Literally nobody.

Nobody is disputing the horrific details of that babys death. Nobody.

What I am objecting to is your post earlier where you stated:

Personally, I am pre-judging this case. Now obviously the person who has been arrested is innocent until proven guilty. However. The individual who attacked that child with a knife is a 100% irredeemable evil scumbag. All that needs to be proven in my view is who actually did it, and innocent until proven guilty should of course apply - but in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned, the only relevant factor should be determining who's hand was holding the knife at the time and whether they were under immediate physical duress (IE, was somebody literally pointing a gun or other knife at them under threat of instant death if they didn't follow orders) - if the answer to that question is a no, then the person who was holding the knife should go to jail until their dying breath, no ifs, no buts.

No level of psychiatric difficulty can justify taking the life of an innocent third party. None.

Regardless of their state of health. An irredeemable evil scumbag who should go to jail until their dying day, no level of psychiatric difficulty, et al.

Just to point out again, nobody thinks it justifies anything. Literally nobody said anything about it being justification.

If you want to label seriously ill people as irredeemable evil scumbags who should be locked in jail for life, I'm going to say that your opinion is uninformed, poorly expressed, lacking compassion and demonstrates zero insight or understanding of the difference between acts committed in cold blood for gain or pleasure, and those sad instances where people are not responsible for actions taken while affected by serious illness outside their control.

kylith

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There's plenty of people with mental illness and skitzophrenia that aren't murdering scumbags, mental illness doesn't make you an evil person. Murdering a toddler does.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And he shouldn't have.



We know that a child got stabbed to death - that doesn't seem to be in dispute. Ergo, somebody out there is the rotten, vile scumbag who did it. I haven't seen any suggestion that he did it to himself. Is that not a fair conclusion? I'm not assuming guilt on any individual's part until somebody has been conclusively proven to have been the person holding the knife, but as I said, somebody out there is the vile scumbag responsible. And absolutely nothing can change their status as a vile scumbag - an act such as this can have absolutely no relevant mitigating factors or sob stories.

Mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis means that you are incapable of telling reality from delusion and right from wrong. It may mean that they are murderers, for example, but they absolutely convinced that the person they killed was an alien replicant, or a demon, or evil, or that something terrible will happen if they don't kill that person. It's hard for someone who hasn't experienced it to understand (I haven't (thankfully), but I have a member of my extended family who is affected, and they were convinced that a member of government was trying to have them killed).

These people need help. They may be murderers, but they are not the run-of-the-mill scumbag killing for convenience or profit or expediency that some would think; they are ill. They do not know what they are doing. Not to say that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, but they need treatment and care more than they need locking up in a prison that is ill equipped to help with their mental issues. In the vast majority of cases they are much more of a danger to themselves than they are to other people.

Assuming that the perpetrator of this crime is legitimately mentally ill.

hatrickpatrick

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course not. And even if this woman was suffering from a psychotic illness, it would be probable that this was not the first manifestation, if that is indeed the case.

Of course not. just because individuals with psychotic illness are disproportionately highly-represented amongst perpetrators of family-homicide, it's quite a leap to even imply that most individuals with psychotic illness are violent, let alone capable of killing.

I mean no disrespect, but I can't imagine what you were even thinking by asking that question. It's a bit like looking at African-American crime statistics and asking "should all African Americans be surveilled?"

It's an incredibly daft question.

psychosis
sʌɪˈkəʊsɪs/
noun
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

That to me, perfectly describes somebody who should be under some kind of observation for fear of what they might do while relieved - albeit perhaps temporarily - of their moral compass and perception of consequences. And definitely shouldn't be solely in charge of helpless dependents. If you know you're liable to have episodes like this in which you could literally do anything and not fully realise it until afterwards, don't you have a responsibility to take action to safeguard any dependents you have in the event that it does happen?

I know a guy who's been through this and he voluntarily presented at inpatient treatment during one of his "clear spells" for this exact reason, indeed - terrified of what might be happen the next time he had an episode. And he didn't even have any dependents of any kind - pets, kids, he even lived alone.

hatrickpatrick

kylith wrote: »

Mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis means that you are incapable of telling reality from delusion and right from wrong. It may mean that they are murderers, for example, but they absolutely convinced that the person they killed was an alien replicant, or a demon, or evil, or that something terrible will happen if they don't kill that person. It's hard for someone who hasn't experienced it to understand (I haven't (thankfully), but I have a member of my extended family who is affected, and they were convinced that a member of government was trying to have them killed).

These people need help. They may be murderers, but they are not the run-of-the-mill scumbag killing for convenience or profit or expediency that some would think; they are ill. They do not know what they are doing. Not to say that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, but they need treatment and care more than they need locking up in a prison that is ill equipped to help with their mental issues. In the vast majority of cases they are much more of a danger to themselves than they are to other people.

Should people like this be allowed to have dependents in their care without any other person involved to protect those dependents in the event of a psychotic episode?

Muir

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

psychosis
sʌɪˈkəʊsɪs/
noun
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

That to me, perfectly describes somebody who should be under some kind of observation for fear of what they might do while relieved - albeit perhaps temporarily - of their moral compass and perception of consequences. And definitely shouldn't be solely in charge of helpless dependents. If you know you're liable to have episodes like this in which you could literally do anything and not fully realise it until afterwards, don't you have a responsibility to take action to safeguard any dependents you have in the event that it does happen?

I know a guy who's been through this and he voluntarily presented at inpatient treatment during one of his "clear spells" for this exact reason, indeed - terrified of what might be happen the next time he had an episode. And he didn't even have any dependents of any kind - pets, kids, he even lived alone.

There aren't enough resources to monitor and care for the people in immediate distress, so how do you propose that every person with any mental disorder (which includes dementia and disability) is observed 24/7?

Most people with these illnesses will never cause any harm to themselves, or anyone else. We could attempt to watch every person with such illnesses, and some may not come to the attention of anyone until it's already too late - what you're proposing is impossible.

You know what the real best solution is? Understanding these illnesses, so that anyone suffering feels able to talk about it, so that someone suffering might not be too scared to seek help in case they are locked up or have their children taken away, or are branded a scumbag. Working towards having better services provided for those who need them, including better family supports.

kylith

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Should people like this be allowed to have dependents in their care without any other person involved to protect those dependents in the event of a psychotic episode?

Ideally, no. But life isn't ideal. People get pregnant, and it's impossible to watch everyone all the time for signs that they might be a danger. Sufferers also can't tell that they are a danger because their psychosis/delusion is reality to them. If you're convinced that, for example, the government is out to kill you are you going to go and tell a doctor, in the employ of the government? You can't trust anyone; anyone could be a spy or an agent.

It's like one of those TV shows where everyone but the hero has been brainwashed or something into being nazis, but the hero knows that that's not the way it should be, but no-one believes them and thinks their crazy.

Imagine knowing that your child has been replaced by a copy as part of a alien plan to take over the planet. You tell a friend or family member but they look at you like you're crazy and you realise that they don't believe you. They're going to lock you up cos they think you're crazy but you know, not think or believe, know that that isn't your child.

JP Liz V1

RIP little one, sleep with the angels

I was sure it said mother a doctor was being questioned earlier on news