The Devil wears Pampers

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Post Reply
User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

The Devil wears Pampers

Post by loCAtek »

Shocking even for Texas and this article leaves out the grisly details;
Insanity ruling for Texas mom who dismembered baby

By ELIDA S. PEREZ
Associated Press Writer

A San Antonio woman who told authorities the devil made her mutilate and dismember her newborn was found not guilty by reason of insanity Thursday, in a deal that sends her to a state mental institution rather than to face a trial and possible prison sentence.

Defense attorneys entered the plea on behalf of Otty Sanchez, 33, and it was accepted shortly thereafter as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

Scott Wesley Buchholz-Sanchez was three weeks old when authorities who received a frantic 911 call from the boy's aunt arrived to find his mutilated body, and Sanchez wailing the devil made her do it. On the call, Sanchez can be heard screaming, "I didn't mean to do it! He told me to!" while her sister pleads for an ambulance.

"This was probably one of the most horrendous cases that we have seen as far as the murder of a child," said County District Attorney Susan Reed.

Sanchez was charged with capital murder and was found competent to stand trial. But Reed said after three examinations by separate doctors determined she was legally insane when she killed her son, the court had no choice but to accept the plea.

"She will be committed until the court decides she is not a danger to herself or anyone else," Reed said.

Reed said she was horrified by what Sanchez did, but also disturbed by the fact that she had sought treatment before killing her son and did not receive the care she needed.

"A lot of people are OK when they are taking their medications but once they stop taking them, they are a danger again," Reed said.

Sanchez periodically sought treatment for mental illness before her son was born and even spent a few hours in an emergency room after the birth because she was hearing voices less than a week before the attack.

Defense attorney Ed Camara said she had been prescribed the antidepressant citalopram after giving birth but had only taken it the day before killing her son. The drugs do not take effect for a few weeks.

An estimated 1,000 women are afflicted with postpartum psychosis. Women with the diagnosis can suffer dangerous delusions and desires to hurt their children, unlike postpartum depression, which occurs in as many as one in five new mothers.

Andrea Yates, the suburban Houston mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub in 2001, and Dena Schlosser, who cut off her baby's arms in 2004 both suffered from the psychosis, their attorneys said.

The justice system has come a long way since Yates was convicted and faced a possible death sentence in 2002, said her attorney, Greg Parnham.

Yates was sentenced to life in prison before her case was overturned on appeal, after which she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006 and sent to a state hospital.

"I think that we have to understand as a society that this gender-based mental disability is real," Parnham said. "New mothers sometimes experience severe depression - some of those mothers become psychotic.".

I post this not just to gawk at yet another brutal murder, but ask the experts;

a) How valid is an insanity defense?

and, in other news sources Sanchez was said to be schizophrenic, and this was an act of 'Postpartum Psychosis'. Never heard of that before;

b) How valid is that diagnosis?



ETA to include longer version of article.
Last edited by loCAtek on Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Lord Jim »

this was an act of 'Postpartum Psychosis'. Never heard of that before;
LoCa that same stunt was pulled successfully to get Andrea Yates off on a psycho defense after she drowned her five children a few years ago. (Also in Texas; also a "Devil made me do it" thing)
Andrea Yates (born Andrea Pia Kennedy July 2, 1964), a former Houston, Texas resident, killed her five young children on June 20, 2001 by drowning them in the bathtub in her house.[1] She had been suffering for years with very severe postpartum depression and psychosis. Her case placed the M'Naghten Rules, a legal test for sanity, under close public scrutiny in the United States.[apparently not close enough scrutiny, give the result in this case][2] Yates's 2002 conviction of capital murder and sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years was later overturned on appeal.

On July 26, 2006, a Texas jury found that Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity. She was consequently committed by the court to the North Texas State Hospital, Vernon Campus,[3] a high-security mental health facility in Vernon, Texas, where she received medical treatment and was a roommate of Dena Schlosser, another woman who committed filicide by killing her infant daughter. In January 2007, Yates was moved to a low security state mental hospital in Kerrville, Texas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11548
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Crackpot »

I think the major difference with this one is that she sought help before the incident.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by loCAtek »

Naw, they both asked for help; Yates did so repeatedly, but also kept having kids, her oldest reaching the age of 6.

This was Sanchez' first child. What is reported in other sources, is that Sanchez continued to dismember her child after killing it by decapitation, in a 'cleaning and cutting' fashion, and there are rumors of cannibalism.

However, while these are decidedly psychotic behaviors; how and why are they attributed to postpartum? A male psychopathic killer can't and doesn't use this excuse, but they also aren't able to use the insanity defense; they're fully prosecuted. Is justice more merciful to crazy women, than crazy men?

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8986
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Sue U »

There is no single "insanity defense"; different states and the federal government have different rules for what must be proved. But fundamentally it requires showing that the defendant could not distinguish right from wrong, or could not appreciate that the act s/he was committing was wrong. Here's a brief excerpt from Wiki outlining several approaches:
The M'Naghten Rules
The guidelines for the M'Naghten Rules (1843) 10 C & F 200, state, inter alia, and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were codified in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naughten in 1843. M'Naughten was a Scottish woodcutter who murdered the secretary to the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naughten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity."

The House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defence,[10][11] and the formulation that emerged from their review—that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions only if, due to his mental disease or defect, he (i) did not know that his act would be wrong; or (ii) did not understand the nature and quality of his actions—became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. Under the rules, loss of control because of mental illness was no defense. The M'Naughten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century. In 1998, 25 states plus the District of Columbia still used versions of the M'Naughten rule to test for legal insanity.

Irresistible Impulse
One of the major criticisms of the M'Naughten rule is that, in its focus on the cognitive ability to know right from wrong, it fails to take into consideration the issue of control "irresistible impulse". Psychiatrists agree that it is possible to understand that one's behavior is wrong, but still be unable to stop oneself. To address this, some states have modified the M'Naughten test with an "irresistible impulse" provision, which absolves a defendant who can distinguish right and wrong but is nonetheless unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong. (This test is also known as the "policeman at the elbow" test: Would the defendant have committed the crime even if there were a policeman standing at his elbow?).

The Durham/New Hampshire Test
The strict M'Naghten standard for the insanity defense was used until the 1950s and the Durham v. United States case. In the Durham case, the court ruled that a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of his mental illness (i.e., crime would not have been committed but for the disease). The test, also called the Product Test, is broader than either the M'Naghten test or the irresistible implulse test. The test has much more lenient guideline for the insanity defense, but it addressed the issue of convicting mentally ill defendants, which was allowed under the M'Naghten Rule. However, the Durham standard drew much criticism because of its expansive definition of legal insanity.

American Law Institute Model
The Model Penal Code, published by the American Law Institute, provided a standard for legal insanity that was a compromise between the strict M'Naghten Rule, the lenient Durham ruling, and the irresistible impulse test. Under the MPC standard, which represents the modern trend, a defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct "if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." The test thus takes into account both the cognitive and volitional capacity of insanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_d ... preciation
GAH!

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Lord Jim »

Is justice more merciful to crazy women, than crazy men?
There may be something to that, at least in cases where harm to their kids is concerned.

Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who drowned her two kids in a car in the hopes of keeping her boyfriend, (and then tried to blame some non existent black guy for kidnapping them) didn't get off with a psycho defense, but she escaped both the DP and Life Without Parole....she'll be eligible for parole in another 14 years, at which point she will be 53, with a lot of years as a free woman potentially ahead of her...

There's not a doubt in my mind that a man who had done what she did would have gotten the death penalty in a death penalty state. (Like South Carolina)
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11548
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Crackpot »

Don't forget about Lizzie Borden
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by loCAtek »

Hmmm, my axe does need sharpening...

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 19701
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by BoSoxGal »

Lizzie Borden was acquitted, and I am conviced she was innocent. I hail from the Fall River area, have researched that case extensively and likely read every major work regarding it. I encourage those with an interest in the case to do the same. The case doesn't really relate in mental illness issues re: criminal acts.

As to post-partum psychosis - it's very, VERY real. A friend lost his wife to it recently; she took her own life, not the life of the 7 month old child they'd tried desperately to have for many years. I hope our society continues to become more understanding of mental illness and to provide services to those who suffer from the various incarnations of it - and to taking that suffering into account appropriately when judging criminal acts.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Lord Jim »

As to post-partum psychosis - it's very, VERY real.
Yes, and so are migraine headaches...

But they shouldn't give you an excuse for murdering your children....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Lord Jim »

While I admit that my knowledge of The Borden case may be a bit rusty...

From what I know about Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, and this most recent creature feature...

They all deserve the needle....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by loCAtek »

Not to be callous in the least, I shut down the Ford Island Bridge because a woman was having 'hormone toxicity' (her PMS hormones were poisoning her own body) and I called the Fire Department. [Nearly got reprimanded for that, but the Firemen supported me saying it's a legitimate medical concern.]

However mental illness can lead to criminal activity, which in most cases is prosecuted. Commonly, an alcoholic DUI causing an accident and/or injury is not excused for their mental condition, 99.999999% of the time.

By all accounts, these women aren't going to 'get better' with treatment, regardless. Justice requires that dangerous sociopaths, to themselves or others, be removed from society.

Shoot, I'm surprised they haven't removed themselves from the gene pool by now already.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Lord Jim »

Justice requires that dangerous sociopaths, to themselves or others, be removed from society.
permanently....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Sean
Posts: 5826
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:17 am
Location: Gold Coast

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Sean »

Slightly off topic...
bigskygal wrote:Lizzie Borden was acquitted, and I am conviced she was innocent. I hail from the Fall River area, have researched that case extensively and likely read every major work regarding it. I encourage those with an interest in the case to do the same. The case doesn't really relate in mental illness issues re: criminal acts.
Have you read 'Lizzie Borden by Daylight' by Victoria Lincoln BSG? It's a good read and for once written by someone who actually knew Lizzie Borden. She presents a fairly compelling case for her guilt and even provides a good possible motive...

edited to fix tags...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Lord Jim »

Sean, you have to understand....

BSG is a bleeding heart thug hugger....

I don't believe she's ever heard of a criminal she didn't feel sorry for...

She probably thinks Jack The Ripper was a poor, misunderstood soul... :D

Maybe he was suffering from ADD, or Restless Leg Syndrome, or the The Heart Break Of Psoriasis... 8-)
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: The Devil wears Pampers

Post by Guinevere »

Lord Jim wrote:
As to post-partum psychosis - it's very, VERY real.
Yes, and so are migraine headaches...

But they shouldn't give you an excuse for murdering your children....
That comment of course, is besides the point, not to mention legally wrong. If you're suffering from post-partum psychosis you cannot form the intent necessary to murder. Period. Which isn't an "excuse" either.

You go stand in a corner with Tom Cruise now. And face the damn wall! In another year or two I'll decide if I'm going to let either of you out :evil:
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Post Reply