So, lemme get this straight....

[conuly]

This woman killed her son.

She drugged him, then put a plastic bag over his head so he couldn't breathe, and waited for him to suffocate.

Premeditated, cold-blooded murder.

But instead of being treated as a murderer, she's out on bail, being charged with manslaughter, and the pastor of her village says that they feel profound sadness and sympathy - for her, not for her dead son.

I wonder, if I just started killing people who were inconvenient to me, could I get profound sadness and sympathy too? I've got a list of people I don't like all that much....


_{Taken from wakasplat}

Comments

[conuly]

*re-reads article*

Does it say in the article that she has a history of psychatric problems, or in another article? Because all I see in this article is that her son had Downs and was autistic, and that she had trouble taking care of him.

Here it is:

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

At a 15-year-minute hearing at Reading Crown Court, Markcrow — watched by family members including her sons Martin and Jonathan — denied murder and admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Nicholas Browne, QC, prosecuting, told the judge that in view of the “overwhelming” psychiatric evidence, the Crown accepted the manslaughter plea and asked the judge to direct that the murder charge remain on file.

//

According to this article, there is "overwhelming psychiatric evidence" of "diminished responsibility" on the part of the mother.

Re: Here it is:

[conuly]

I understand the phrase "overwhelming psychiatric evidence", but what does "diminished responsibility" mean? It can't mean what it looks like it means, because that wouldn't make sense.

Re: Here it is:

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

It means, I believe, that her mental condition relieves her of some responsibility. Not perhaps "temporary insanity", but enough to downgrade her from "murder" to "manslaughter".

I'm no lawyer, and I'm no doctor, but that is my take on it.

Re: Here it is:

[conuly]

*nods slightly*

I can see what her lawyer argued, and that the court accepted it, but I'm not sure it means what you think it means. It could mean that the lawyer said "look, see how hard it was to take care of him for his entire life? Of course there was enough stress that she snapped!", and that's not an acceptable argument, to me.

I'll wait for more news on the subject.

Re: Here it is:

[eofs.livejournal.com]

No, it can't mean that. It is a legal term referring specifically to reduced/impaired mental capacity. If the lawyer had argued it was stress or whatever I'm sure The Times would have used a more appropriate term.

Re: Here it is:

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I'm just going by "overwhelming psychiatric evidence". Of course, we do not know what that is.