• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas investigators stunned by child dismemberment

aps said:
It does, but why did the sister take the child back to his mother? Maybe she didn't understand what hearing voices means (a psychosis/psychotic break). I would have taken her to a hospital right away and not given her baby back to her.
Click to expand...

Not fully grasping the seriousness of the situation and denial are two very strong possibilities. Ms. Sanchez had been diagnosed with schizophrenia the previous year, but no one knows yet how involved her family was in the oversight of her treatment plan. Also, it's unclear at this time what, if any, patient teaching Ms. Sanchez or her family received regarding her increased risk of developing postpartum psychosis or the absolute necessity of strict adherence to her medication regimen to control her illness.

Russell Yates received widespread criticism and blame for not preventing the death of his children as well.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's tragic, but what the Hell else can you do for her?

You're either going to end up killing her or keeping her in a cage forever. And even if you could treat her, even if you could make her well and allow her to rejoin society... what kind of mercy is that, when she'll still have to live with what she's done? You would be saving her life, when the only rational choice on her part would be to end it.

There are no good choices here. Killing her is merely the least terrible.
Click to expand...

This has changed my stance on the death penalty. I'm still very much against it as a general method of punishment, but in extreme instances like this I think it is completely warranted. This woman ate her own child alive and there is no question of guilt, she does not need to live anymore. I wouldn’t even call it the death “penalty”, more like a painless release from hell…
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's tragic, but what the Hell else can you do for her?

You're either going to end up killing her or keeping her in a cage forever. And even if you could treat her, even if you could make her well and allow her to rejoin society... what kind of mercy is that, when she'll still have to live with what she's done? You would be saving her life, when the only rational choice on her part would be to end it.

There are no good choices here. Killing her is merely the least terrible.
Click to expand...


This is a lose - lose situation no matter how you look at it. It's saddening to hear killing someone is the least terrible of all choices. Yet I can't think of a good alternative.

There are evil people out there who deserve slow painful deaths, but I don't think anyone here would accuse this woman of being one. The child is beyond help so the question is do we help or do we punish the mother?

The main reason for punishment in society is to deter similar crimes. Let's face it, for someone in this mental state, that's not a factor. Any punishment here would be vengeance for this outrage. If she ever comes to a point where can comprehend what she has done, that will be more punishment than we could ever inflict.

As for helping her....... We don't have the technology. We can not rebuild her.

So we have a moral quandary with no good answer. The best we can do is remove her from society so she can not hurt others. ... Hurry up and close the barn door. The horses have gotten out.
 
I don't believe in the deterrent power of punishment and as far as I have seen, social science doesn't bear it out. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two valid reactions to crime: euthanasia and rehabilitation. The main criterion in deciding between the two should be whether rehabilitation and release back into society is worth the time, effort, and risk that it involves.

I would be willing to guess that we actually can rehabilitate this woman for the organic brain disorder which forced her to brutally kill her child. It would, in fact, be easier than attempting to treat the majority of habitual and career criminals. The question is whether or not we're capable of treating her for the terrible grief and horror at her own actions, and for the terrible social isolation that comes from being known as a child-killer. And that... I do not think there is any treatment for.

Legally, she can not be held accountable for the death of her child. And that is a shame, because all of the legal options at our disposal for handling criminal insanity seem to me to be acts of unspeakable cruelty in this case.
 
hiswoman said:
Not fully grasping the seriousness of the situation and denial are two very strong possibilities. Ms. Sanchez had been diagnosed with schizophrenia the previous year, but no one knows yet how involved her family was in the oversight of her treatment plan. Also, it's unclear at this time what, if any, patient teaching Ms. Sanchez or her family received regarding her increased risk of developing postpartum psychosis or the absolute necessity of strict adherence to her medication regimen to control her illness.

Russell Yates received widespread criticism and blame for not preventing the death of his children as well.
Click to expand...

Very good points. Can you imagine how the sister feels now? I am sure this is going to haunt her forever.
 
Thank you for a very good response. I will read up on the topic. In fact, I'll see if I can get the signs and symptoms added to our local EMS training.

I'm unable to elaborate, but our regional mental health system had a disastrous failure this week. So it's probably a good time for us to expand our horizons where mental health emergencies are concerned.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't believe in the deterrent power of punishment and as far as I have seen, social science doesn't bear it out. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two valid reactions to crime: euthanasia and rehabilitation. The main criterion in deciding between the two should be whether rehabilitation and release back into society is worth the time, effort, and risk that it involves.

I would be willing to guess that we actually can rehabilitate this woman for the organic brain disorder which forced her to brutally kill her child. It would, in fact, be easier than attempting to treat the majority of habitual and career criminals. The question is whether or not we're capable of treating her for the terrible grief and horror at her own actions, and for the terrible social isolation that comes from being known as a child-killer. And that... I do not think there is any treatment for.

Legally, she can not be held accountable for the death of her child. And that is a shame, because all of the legal options at our disposal for handling criminal insanity seem to me to be acts of unspeakable cruelty in this case.
Click to expand...

She already tried to kill herself by stabbing.
Perhaps, not as a punishment but as a gesture of compassion, we should offer her the option of physician-assisted suicide, and escort her to Switzerland or wherever it's legal to receive it.

That would be a humane option, spare Texas the expense of a grotesque spectacle of a trial, and probably fulfill the sick woman's wishes as well.
And then we'd be rid of her.
 
Oftencold said:
Thank you for a very good response. I will read up on the topic. In fact, I'll see if I can get the signs and symptoms added to our local EMS training.

I'm unable to elaborate, but our regional mental health system had a disastrous failure this week. So it's probably a good time for us to expand our horizons where mental health emergencies are concerned.
Click to expand...

Good for you, OC! If possible, be sure to let us know the outcome. :)
 
aps said:
I saw the article on CNN and could not read it after the first sentence. I want to vomit.

Jeez, I am crying just thinking about it. hiswoman said it perfectly. On top of this, one of my good friends at work went to college with a woman who left her 5-month old son accidentally in her car in Florida--she came back at 5pm, and he was dead. This just happened last Thursday.
Click to expand...

==========================================================
There is no lack of irresponsibility in this world. People will do what people will do. The story of the woman hacking up her baby is horrendous, to say the least. I can't even imagine what demons possess ones mind to make her do such a horrid thing. That poor precious little soul.
 
aps said:
Very good points. Can you imagine how the sister feels now? I am sure this is going to haunt her forever.
Click to expand...

Definitely. A lot of lives have been destroyed. Shakespeare himself would be hard pressed to compose a more heartbreaking tragedy.
 
hiswoman said:
Definitely. A lot of lives have been destroyed. Shakespeare himself would be hard pressed to compose a more heartbreaking tragedy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, although Titus Andronicus does come close.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Why the disgrace? She was out of her mind, and knowing she was out of her mind tried to have someone else care for her baby. She was immediately horrified with remorse at what she had done, and would not have harmed the child if she had any control over herself or any choice in the matter.

You wouldn't beat a rabid dog. Why would you shame and punish this woman?
Click to expand...
Shame and punishment aren't my objective. I merely want her put down. Strictly utilitarian.
 
1069 said:
And then we'd be rid of her.
Click to expand...
As horrific as this crime is, I would hate to think making people disposable is a healthy choice for any society.
 
celticlord said:
As horrific as this crime is, I would hate to think making people disposable is a healthy choice for any society.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I believe people have the right to make the decision to end their lives at will. If the person is mentally ill (as is the case in this situation) I don't believe that necessarily negates that right, any more than it would negate a woman's right to abortion. it's the same sort of thing: a bodily sovereignty issue (as in, "Who owns your body? You, or the state?).

We must ask ourselves whether it's probable that the mentally ill person is being reasonable in this instance (in wishing to end her life), even though she may not have been reasonable in other instances.

I think if we ask ourselves objectively if we would want to end our lives in her position (having dismembered and partially eaten our children), then we will have our answer as to whether or not she's making a reasonable decision.
 
1069 said:
Unlike you, I believe people have the right to make the decision to end their lives at will. If the person is mentally ill (as is the case in this situation) I don't believe that necessarily negates that right, any more than it would negate a woman's right to abortion. it's the same sort of thing: a bodily sovereignty issue (as in, "Who owns your body? You, or the state?).

We must ask ourselves whether it's probable that the mentally ill person is being reasonable in this instance (in wishing to end her life), even though she may not have been reasonable in other instances.

I think if we ask ourselves objectively if we would want to end our lives in her position (having dismembered and partially eaten our children), then we will have our answer as to whether or not she's making a reasonable decision.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I'm not comfortable with the idea of being "rid of her" as a solution to the problem of the mentally ill.

Your use of compassionate words in offering her a "choice" of suicide would have more credibility if you weren't so eager to just "be rid of her."

The more intellectually honest position for you would be to advocate capital punishment--if you are so eager to be rid of the mentally ill, you should at least be willing to exterminate them yourself, not ask them to spare you that burden.
 
I have more sympathy for this woman then I do most other stories of women tossing babes in dumpsters or attempting to jam 'em down the toilet. This particular story is heinous and features a brain eating cannibal but still I feel just horrible for this woman and what she now has to live with if they ever get her meds right. I can't even imagine what it must be like to not have control over one's thoughts and senses. To have your mind betray you and alter reality and then the nightmare really begins when you snap out of it. What a cruel state of being. I hope there is mercy for this poor soul somehow someway.
 
This is a great example of why sterility/abortions should be forced on segments of society.
 
Coolguy said:
This is a great example of why sterility/abortions should be forced on segments of society.
Click to expand...
Oh wonderful, another defender of Buck v Bell.

What other eugenics canards are you planning to trundle out here?
 
celticlord said:
Oh wonderful, another defender of Buck v Bell.

What other eugenics canards are you planning to trundle out here?
Click to expand...
In this case... absolutely.
 
I don't believe in forced abortion or sterilization for the diagnosed mentally ill; I do believe their children should be removed from their custody at birth, and perhaps they should be allowed supervised visitation, if it isn't harmful to the child.
My mother was schizophrenic also; in my case, she fortunately removed herself from the situation before she had to resort to eating my brain or anything similarly grotesque. I'm really glad she did remove herself, although to my knowledge she wasn't physically violent and might never have hurt me. I just don't think it is healthy for a child to grow up in close, unsupervised proximity to a person who suffers from serious mental illness.
 
1069 said:
I don't believe in forced abortion or sterilization for the diagnosed mentally ill; I do believe their children should be removed from their custody at birth, and perhaps they should be allowed supervised visitation, if it isn't harmful to the child.
Click to expand...
Certainly, it would not be out of bounds to monitor schizophrenic parents closely, to make sure they are compliant with their medication regimens, and that the medication regimens are working.

I'm reluctant to say that arbitrarily taking children away from mentally ill parents is a good idea--that strikes me as a level of government power too easily abused or misused.

One thing this case demonstrates absolutely: how we attend to the needs of the seriously mentally ill sucks.
 
celticlord said:
Certainly, it would not be out of bounds to monitor schizophrenic parents closely, to make sure they are compliant with their medication regimens, and that the medication regimens are working.

I'm reluctant to say that arbitrarily taking children away from mentally ill parents is a good idea--that strikes me as a level of government power too easily abused or misused.

One thing this case demonstrates absolutely: how we attend to the needs of the seriously mentally ill sucks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of them have fallen through the cracks since the civil rights movement. I believe laws protecting the rights of the mentally ill that were enacted during the 60s and 70s were well-intentioned, but in some cases it leaves them without the care and supervision they need. Mentally ill people can't always be trusted to take their medication, for instance, and some of them really need in-patient treatment. It's very difficult to have a mentally ill adult locked up involuntarily these days, beyond just a 72-hour evaluation period, unless they've committed some sort of crime.
 
1069 said:
I don't believe in forced abortion or sterilization for the diagnosed mentally ill; I do believe their children should be removed from their custody at birth, and perhaps they should be allowed supervised visitation, if it isn't harmful to the child.
My mother was schizophrenic also; in my case, she fortunately removed herself from the situation before she had to resort to eating my brain or anything similarly grotesque. I'm really glad she did remove herself, although to my knowledge she wasn't physically violent and might never have hurt me. I just don't think it is healthy for a child to grow up in close, unsupervised proximity to a person who suffers from serious mental illness.
Click to expand...

Can I ask what you mean by "serious mental illness"? Just schizophrenia and psychosis, or including disorders like PTSD and bipolar disorder? I think a fact pertinent to this discussion is that absent schizophrenics and those suffering a complete psychotic break, the mentally ill are no more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population.
 
celticlord said:
Certainly, it would not be out of bounds to monitor schizophrenic parents closely, to make sure they are compliant with their medication regimens, and that the medication regimens are working.

I'm reluctant to say that arbitrarily taking children away from mentally ill parents is a good idea--that strikes me as a level of government power too easily abused or misused.

One thing this case demonstrates absolutely: how we attend to the needs of the seriously mentally ill sucks.
Click to expand...

Agreed, completely. If one is in fact to ill to care for their children, then I'm all for foster services stepping in while attempts are made to assist the mother back to health (if possible), but this should be a decision made on a case by case basis, not a blanket policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom