Woman runs over philandering husband.

[TheStinger]

People with depression don't help themselves to get better its a function of the illness. It is not an easy diagnosis to make, I assume your treatment would be for the person to pull themselves together.

You are equating the neglect of baby due to the almost certian illness of the mother to the deliberate killing of a child.
Have you any idea how desperate you must be to ignore the cries of a child for that lenght of time

[SirTweek]

hmmm....Before I was institutionalized for depression I don't remember going out and killing anyone or starving any babies, especially while I continued on with my daily life talking on the phone happily with friends. I also remember that I still understood the concepts of right and wrong. I also did seek out help because I knew I was sick unfortunatley I was turned down at the hospitals a number of times and did not get the help I needed until it was almost to late.

Sure something was wrong with this women but then something is wrong with most murderers. The vast majority of murderers don't just go out and kill for the fun of it. Do you proprose letting any one off that is mentally ill? Psychopathic murder what does he get 12 months with his parents? How about an employee that cracks under stress and kills a dozen people at his workplace, maybe he can get a couple years living with his dad.

I believe to use mental illness as a defence it has to be proven that at the time of the crime the criminal does not know the diffrence between right and wrong. Even when a person if proven to be mentally ill during the crime they are still sentenced to be institutionalized, usually in a mental ward.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by orange
I still don't see the philosophical difference between lying in one instance and lying in another. Both are 'wrong'. Now, if Clinton lies under oath about his sex life, which I support since it's none of anyone's damn business, but gets impeached for it...why is that a crime whereas lying to a spouse whom with you have a 'contract' based on fidelity is not? Ok, so this becomes grounds for a divorce...so what?

Err, if you have your way Clinton's "sex life" would be everyone's business anyway, because it would have been criminal, even without the perjury / obstruction of justice aspect.

I agree with you that infidelity sucks. It is harmful to society oftentimes by harming especially children, though it's no picnic for any of the parties. But as with abortion, I think it is better to let people decide their own course of action in these cases. I don't think many people go into marriage assuming that they will be unfaithful, just as many people have sex without assuming that a pregnancy will occur. Both seem to have a fair chance of happening anyway.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by SirTweek
hmmm....Before I was institutionalized for depression I don't remember going out and killing anyone or starving any babies, especially while I continued on with my daily life talking on the phone happily with friends. I also remember that I still understood the concepts of right and wrong. I also did seek out help because I knew I was sick unfortunatley I was turned down at the hospitals a number of times and did not get the help I needed until it was almost to late.

You were lucky you had insight into your illnes many do not. Post Natal depression is somwhat different to normal depression and I woouls guess that this woman had the much more serious condition of peeperal psychosis which if detected result in immediate hospitlization because you are a risk to yourself and your baby.

Originally posted by SirTweek
Sure something was wrong with this women but then something is wrong with most murderers. The vast majority of murderers don't just go out and kill for the fun of it. Do you proprose letting any one off that is mentally ill? Psychopathic murder what does he get 12 months with his parents? How about an employee that cracks under stress and kills a dozen people at his workplace, maybe he can get a couple years living with his dad. .

I am not saying this at all. I am saying that she is not a murderer, she did not have the capacity to form the intent to kill deliberatley.

Originally posted by SirTweek
I believe to use mental illness as a defence it has to be proven that at the time of the crime the criminal does not know the diffrence between right and wrong. Even when a person if proven to be mentally ill during the crime they are still sentenced to be institutionalized, usually in a mental ward.

Exactly, she should get treatment and then go home.

[SirTweek]

I see no excuse no matter what form of depression she suffered from. She still knew the diffrence between right and wrong, she was not considered not guilty because of mental illness. There was no attempt to determine if she knew right or wrong. The defence simply said post partum depression and the judge gave the conditional sentence. The trial was a farce. Even the local feminazi editorial writer recognized it as this. This women had ample avenues of help available to her if she needed it.

The psychopath doesn't always have the intent to kill, neither does the guy that cracks under stress, how is this women's case diffrent. In fact I would say the guy that cracks under stress has even less control of his actions since he commited his crime during a fit of anger, some stress killers black out when they commit the crime. This women had days to contemplate what she was doing. As for being put in a institution I believe that the time spent in the institution should be as long as the time would have been spent in jail.

[TheStinger]

As you keep using the phrase femminazi I assume you believe women are lucky to have the vote and that any explanation of behaviour which you find diffcicult to understand is some product of a left wing conspiracy.

Even in the days before depression wasn't understood the killing of a child b its mother was classed differently to normal homicide.

Its a terrible shame the baby died, why does there have to an evil doer behind the crime.( and note i am not saying a crime wasn't committed)

[SirTweek]

Originally posted by TheStinger
As you keep using the phrase femminazi I assume you believe women are lucky to have the vote and that any explanation of behaviour which you find diffcicult to understand is some product of a left wing conspiracy.

Even in the days before depression wasn't understood the killing of a child b its mother was classed differently to normal homicide.

Its a terrible shame the baby died, why does there have to an evil doer behind the crime.( and note i am not saying a crime wasn't committed)

I use the term feminazi because I believe it suits the type of feminists that think women are inherntily superiour to men. I am a socialist atheist but I am not a gender feminist. I think the culture of victimhood and therapism that we live in today is an abomination. I believe in equal oppurtunity for all people. It's nice that some people like to assume things and fit others into a nice little political and philosophical box. Left and right wing are outdated political designations in my opinion anyway.

I find it hard to believe that women suffer from such opression in Canadian society. I have been to a few modern feminist meetings and hearing university educated middle and upper class women harp on about how opressed they are because a guy said they had a nice butt just seems incredible to me. These women wouldn't know opression or suffering if it knocked them in the head. Hearing them excuse women's actions with a syndrome for everything is a travesty of justice. These people I would call feminazis. Someone like my wife who believes in equal pay, the worth of both the masculine and the feminine, and in taking responsibility for yourself is the type of feminist I would associate with.

I work in a residence for poverty striken mentally ill men I have no trouble understanding mental illness suffering from it myself and also dealing with it everday. I deal with people with every mental illness under the sun from personality disorders to schizophrenia. A lot of the guys here aren't given anywhere near the help the murderess was given. No one came to there house and gave them pamphlets, no one checked up on them, most mental health hotlines and programs are geared towards women in my city with the exception of drug abuse programs.

Anyway I'm at work right now, and it's about 7am here so the guys are all going to be up soon and I better get back at it, I suppose I will just have to agree to disagree with you.

[orange]

Originally posted by Sikander
Err, if you have your way Clinton's "sex life" would be everyone's business anyway, because it would have been criminal, even without the perjury / obstruction of justice aspect.

As stated many times before, I'm playing devil's advocate. Just so we're straight...

But no, having to tell whether or not you got a BJ in the white house to a grand jury is not necessary when fidelity is not the subject of the case. If you're on trial for murder and are asked if you ever smoked pot, it doesn't have to do with the trial and shouldn't be an issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you mean by the part in bold?

When you divorce the estate is usually divided up in half, unless there is some prenup.

So adultery is as good a reason as "The old cow has put on a few"?

Yep... and you should know that there are plenty of divorces because either the man or the woman has gained weight.

[orange]

so really, it can be argued that there is no penalty at all, civil or otherwise, for adultery.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Sava
I hope she gets the chair. Murder isn't justifieD no matter what the husband was doing. And I don't believe that sudden rage bS. If she's going to get sudden rage any time something bad happens, it's just an excuse to kill.

Hulk mad! Hulk smash!

[Imran Siddiqui]

so really, it can be argued that there is no penalty at all, civil or otherwise, for adultery.

Well there is divorce.

I don't why there should be any other penalty for adultery. I mean not loving your wife anymore is a bigger deal, because in your vows you usually pledge 'to love...'

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, as I said earlier, many would rather die than divorce. As outmoded as that may seem, some people invest lots of time and energy into a marriage.

Marriage is several things all wrapped up into one. For religious people, it is a contract between you and God, as well as between you and your spouse. The relevant phrase is that the two become one flesh. Divorce then becomes analogous to ripping oneself apart.

Adultery for these people is wrong because of the injury done to the faithful party, as well as breaking a promise made to God.

But that's a civil union, and certainly doesn't warrant any criminal punishment if someone cheats on their SO or anything.

Asher, how is this civil union similar to marriage? Part of the deal is that if one party abandons the other, the faithful partner is protected by law. With your suggestion, this civil union is no different from common-law relationships.

I mean not loving your wife anymore is a bigger deal, because in your vows you usually pledge 'to love...

Imran, you hit the nail on the head. Yes, adultery is wrong and so is not loving your wife. Generally adultery will not come about unless one has lost some of this love. However, how does one show that you no longer love the person you married? This is much more difficult than to prove adultery.

Frogger, I agree that lying is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. However, what the law can prove is by definition limited, so we can only prosecute those offenses we can prove occur, one example being fraud.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, you hit the nail on the head. Yes, adultery is wrong and so is not loving your wife. Generally adultery will not come about unless one has lost some of this love. However, how does one show that you no longer love the person you married? This is much more difficult than to prove adultery.

But you don't suffer civil or criminal penalties for not loving your wife .

Frogger, I agree that lying is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. However, what the law can prove is by definition limited, so we can only prosecute those offenses we can prove occur, one example being fraud.

The ONLY way that fraud could apply is if you were not serious about your wedding vows WHEN YOU MADE THEM! If you cheat afterwards, that cannot be fraud, because you don't continually renew your vows every year (or month, or day).

[orange]

So all contracts are only legal for the time they are signed? If broken at some point in the future, because it was not 'renewed' it shouldn't continue to be binding? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic...