• 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!

Atlanta mom charged with murder after allegedly putting 2 young sons in oven

Pending a better examination...she isnt insane...at least not to the point of non compos mentis. She tried to hide the act and tried to deceive law enforcement. There is every reason to believe she knew what she was doing and she knew what she was doing was wrong.
 
Perhaps you would feel more at home amongst ISIS.

Two kids literally murder a toddler and you think only ISIS find that morally unacceptable?

:lol:
 
Two kids literally murder a toddler and you think only ISIS find that morally unacceptable?

:lol:

Only ISIS would execute 10 year old children for it. Even Saudi Arabia don't execute the mentally ill and children. I guess I can only offer my congratulations to you on being less civilised than Saudi Arabia. Well done.
 
Only ISIS would execute 10 year old children for it. Even Saudi Arabia don't execute the mentally ill and children. I guess I can only offer my congratulations to you on being less civilised than Saudi Arabia. Well done.

Only ISIS. Heck... why not just call me Hitler...

Does that help you feel better?

Your opinion of "civilized" is illogical and lacking merit. Until you can differentiate between whiney personal morals and consistent legal consequences... well. Good luck.
 
Only ISIS. Heck... why not just call me Hitler...

Does that help you feel better?

Your opinion of "civilized" is illogical and lacking merit. Until you can differentiate between whiney personal morals and consistent legal consequences... well. Good luck.

You're the one taking a moral stance that even Saudi Arabia finds unacceptable.

You want 10 year old children and mentally ill people who kill to be executed. The only place where you will find that is in ISIS controlled territory. I'm perfectly comfortable with my opinion of civilised, and it's in line with the entire world outside of ISIS and yourself.
 
Ah yes. The liberal mantra.

Murderers of small children are patients. Not criminals.

Fascinating.

No one is saying that. We're saying that her particular actions indicate a possibility of mental illness or a psychotic episode.
 
No one is saying that. We're saying that her particular actions indicate a possibility of mental illness or a psychotic episode.

"Mental illness" and "psychotic episode" do not preclude the crime.

Do you ever wonder why the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense is so rarely successful?

Because, even if the murderer has some sort of mental illness, it rarely rises to the level of her not being able to control herself.

Unless this woman actually believed her children were loaves of bread and she needed to bake them -- mental illness is not a sufficient defense. It does not rise to the level of removing culpability.

Rather, we have a cruel and self-centered individual here who most likely thought her children were too much trouble. Or, a woman who thought she could "get back" at their father by harming them. The father is devastated.

No matter how you defend the woman, or make excuses for her state of mind, she still chose to kill her own babies.

That's not ever forgivable.
 
"Mental illness" and "psychotic episode" do not preclude the crime.

Do you ever wonder why the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense is so rarely successful?

Because, even if the murderer has some sort of mental illness, it rarely rises to the level of her not being able to control herself.

Unless this woman actually believed her children were loaves of bread and she needed to bake them -- mental illness is not a sufficient defense. It does not rise to the level of removing culpability.

Rather, we have a cruel and self-centered individual here who most likely thought her children were too much trouble. Or, a woman who thought she could "get back" at their father by harming them. The father is devastated.

No matter how you defend the woman, or make excuses for her state of mind, she still chose to kill her own babies.

That's not ever forgivable.

And that is what manslaughter laws cover. I'm not defending her actions or making excuses. I'm saying that she may have a reduced mental capacity that makes manslaughter a more appropriate charge.
 
And that is what manslaughter laws cover. I'm not defending her actions or making excuses. I'm saying that she may have a reduced mental capacity that makes manslaughter a more appropriate charge.

The horrific nature of her crime (an aggravating factor) will very likely preclude any mitigating factors as wimpy as reduced mental capacity, but you bring up an interesting point.

If reduced mental capacity is a risk in raising children, should we discourage those who appear to have it from having children? Do we, as society, bear some responsibility for allowing people with reduced mental capacity to propagate? Should reduced mental capacity be a reason for removing children from a home?

What previous abuse did these poor children suffer at the hands of the one person in this world they should have been able to trust?

I see nothing short of true insanity (which is highly unlikely) that would make any sort of impact in this case. Child abusers are not mentally ill in the vast majority of cases -- they're simple self-centered and have no empathy for innocent children.

I fervently hope this woman is put to death, but I'm not aware of the laws in her state so I don't know what will happen. All I know, and I think you know it as well, is that she should never walk free again. She's lost that right. A manslaughter charge could see her out of prison in less than 10 years. That's not right or just in any world.
 
I fervently hope this woman is put to death, but I'm not aware of the laws in her state so I don't know what will happen. All I know, and I think you know it as well, is that she should never walk free again. She's lost that right. A manslaughter charge could see her out of prison in less than 10 years. That's not right or just in any world.

A manslaughter charge would only be levied against her if she were found mentally incompetent to stand trial. If she is found competent to stand trial, I'm pretty sure she won't get a slap on the wrist. If she is found of sound mind, she'll be looking at murder in the 1st degree.

The issue here is her mental stability, of which you seem to have issue.
 
You're the one taking a moral stance that even Saudi Arabia finds unacceptable.

You want 10 year old children and mentally ill people who kill to be executed. The only place where you will find that is in ISIS controlled territory. I'm perfectly comfortable with my opinion of civilised, and it's in line with the entire world outside of ISIS and yourself.

So you cant argue logically and prefer veiled ad homs, straw men and red herrings. Cool. Good luck with that.
 
A manslaughter charge would only be levied against her if she were found mentally incompetent to stand trial. If she is found competent to stand trial, I'm pretty sure she won't get a slap on the wrist. If she is found of sound mind, she'll be looking at murder in the 1st degree.

The issue here is her mental stability, of which you seem to have issue.

As far as I know, she's already been charged with murder.

As far as her mental stability, she was smart enough to try and tell the cops that she came home and found the caregiver gone and the boys already dead. She was smart enough to try and save her own skin after she burned the skin off her babies' bodies.

I have no sympathy.

I hope, wherever she's tried, they have the death penalty and that she gets it.
 
So you cant argue logically and prefer veiled ad homs, straw men and red herrings. Cool. Good luck with that.

What ad homs? What straw men? What red herrings? What on earth are you talking about?

You think executing 10 year olds is civilised; I disagree. Not much more to debate really, is there?
 
What ad homs? What straw men? What red herrings? What on earth are you talking about?

You think executing 10 year olds is civilised; I disagree. Not much more to debate really, is there?

Ad Hom = Comparing me to ISIS and uncivilized societies
Red Herring = Saying I think it is OK to "execute 10 year old's" instead of 10 year old MURDERERS
Straw Man = in there somewhere too but I don't care enough to back track...

I will take 2/3 and that should affirm the 3rd is also accurate.

I made an ethical argument. Teleological or deontalogical ethics... can't remember which.
 
Ad Hom = Comparing me to ISIS and uncivilized societies
Red Herring = Saying I think it is OK to "execute 10 year old's" instead of 10 year old MURDERERS
Straw Man = in there somewhere too but I don't care enough to back track...

I will take 2/3 and that should affirm the 3rd is also accurate.

I made an ethical argument. Teleological or deontalogical ethics... can't remember which.

I never compared you to ISIS, I said if you want to execute 10 year old killers then you may feel at home there because they are the only ones in the world who would do that. You're advocating for things that even Saudi Arabia finds unacceptable, so the uncivilised comment is valid.

When you're taking a moral stance that is only shared by ISIS be prepared to be called uncivilised. That's not an ad hom, it's based on your stance.
 
If she is mentally ill, she should be placed in a secure psychiatric hospital; but this is America, so...

Which is what happens when one is found not guilty by reason of insanity ("NGRI"). When it's murder they are so-called "acquitted" of, they end up in an institution for the rest of their lives.

But jurors are usually just told that they get periodic evaluations to determine if they can be released, and make the unwarranted assumption that this means if they find the defending NGRI, that person will soon walk free and kill again. Not true. But they aren't told otherwise and the lawyers most certainly aren't allowed to mention in closing that an NGRI verdict might as well be a conviction.


At least in a secure hospital, they aren't causing problems with other people. Instead, they get convicted and cause all sorts of problems in jail, already a bad place.
 
I never compared you to ISIS, I said if you want to execute 10 year old killers then you may feel at home there because they are the only ones in the world who would do that. You're advocating for things that even Saudi Arabia finds unacceptable, so the uncivilised comment is valid.

When you're taking a moral stance that is only shared by ISIS be prepared to be called uncivilised. That's not an ad hom, it's based on your stance.

So you will not debate the ethical stance and return to ad hom's... cool.

You never compared me to ISIS you just said that I might feel comfortable with them because they share my values? :lol:

That is not comparing?... :lol:

Sorry buddy.

No... the moral stance is not only shared by ISIS... I am not in ISIS nor are others that think the way I do that are not in ISIS. So... NO. That moral stance is not only shared by ISIS...

Your posts display a complete lack of logic, as exampled in the two above points.

I'll take your criticism of being uncivilized in the face of the contrary evidence to your posts that are evidenced to be lacking in logic.
 
Anyone who puts her babies in the oven and turns it on is crazy, of course. But Lamore Williams then placed a video call to the kids’ dad to show him what she'd done, so she's not going to meet the legal definition of insanity, is she?

That depends. I'd add that plenty of people meet that definition according to psychiatrists/psychologists, indeed multiple psychs in one case, but still end up getting convicted as if sane.



I don't know the facts of this case beyond the Fox link, but in general, insanity isn't stupidity. A delusional person can execute a flawless robbery of a bank, but does so because they are completely convinced that Saddam Hussein controls that bank and that by robbing it, they are fighting against a bad man. A delusional person can most certainly make a video and send it, like she did to the father. She might, for example, have a fixed false belief system in which the father worked with the CIA to drug her and make her think she gave birth, and that these children are in fact aliens altered to look human. I'm not making a joke, don't get me wrong. I've worked with my share of delusional people and delusions never make sense.

There was a guy in mass who filmed himself brutally murdering his mother. He was utterly and thoroughly convinced that she was a altered to look like his mother and replaced her as part of some far-flung government conspiracy to monitor/persecute him. (Though I think the jury convicted him anyway, perhaps assuming that if they found him not guilty by reason of insanity, he'd get out and do something like it again). The making of a video can be pretty ambiguous.

I'm not sure I want to watch the video here, but did you see and note something that indicates sanity to you?



The fact that popped out to me was that she initially claimed she left the kids with a relative. But then, even lying to throw of suspicion doesn't necessarily mean sanity. It can equally indicate the person knows that the government prosecutes murderers and suspects they might not be believed when they explain whatever delusional reason they had for doing it was. Or, if they believe the government is in on whatever crazy conspiracy it is, they might try to throw off suspicion for that reason - it'd be perfectly logical if their delusion were actually true.

I saw a case rather like that. All we wanted was to have him locked up for life in a mental hospital. Instead they locked him up for life in a prison, where he remains 100% convinced that the person he killed is alive, now planted in the prison to monitor him, and that every last bit of the grand conspiracy is still going on. Still real. (It might not surprise you that they don't exactly worry about perfect treatment in prison. They do give some medication, but they don't give the treatment necessary as they might in a mental hospital).



But then, I don't think the facts of the case clearly indicate insanity. History is stuffed to bursting with evil people. And, hell, some cultures would let deformed babies die of exposure.








Rambling complete.
 
Last edited:
That depends. I'd add that plenty of people meet that definition according to psychiatrists/psychologists, indeed multiple psychs in one case, but still end up getting convicted as if sane.



I don't know the facts of this case beyond the Fox link, but in general, insanity isn't stupidity. A delusional person can execute a flawless robbery of a bank, but does so because they are completely convinced that Saddam Hussein controls that bank and that by robbing it, they are fighting against a bad man. A delusional person can most certainly make a video and send it, like she did to the father. She might, for example, have a fixed false belief system in which the father worked with the CIA to drug her and make her think she gave birth, and that these children are in fact aliens altered to look human. I'm not making a joke, don't get me wrong. I've worked with my share of delusional people and delusions never make sense.

There was a guy in mass who filmed himself brutally murdering his mother. He was utterly and thoroughly convinced that she was a altered to look like his mother and replaced her as part of some far-flung government conspiracy to monitor/persecute him. (Though I think the jury convicted him anyway, perhaps assuming that if they found him not guilty by reason of insanity, he'd get out and do something like it again). The making of a video can be pretty ambiguous.

I'm not sure I want to watch the video here, but did you see and note something that indicates sanity to you?



The fact that popped out to me was that she initially claimed she left the kids with a relative. But then, even lying to throw of suspicion doesn't necessarily mean sanity. It can equally indicate the person knows that the government prosecutes murderers and suspects they might not be believed when they explain whatever delusional reason they had for doing it was. Or, if they believe the government is in on whatever crazy conspiracy it is, they might try to throw off suspicion for that reason - it'd be perfectly logical if their delusion were actually true.

I saw a case rather like that. All we wanted was to have him locked up for life in a mental hospital. Instead they locked him up for life in a prison, where he remains 100% convinced that the person he killed is alive, now planted in the prison to monitor him, and that every last bit of the grand conspiracy is still going on. Still real. (It might not surprise you that they don't exactly worry about perfect treatment in prison. They do give some medication, but they don't give the treatment necessary as they might in a mental hospital).



But then, I don't think the facts of the case clearly indicate insanity. History is stuffed to bursting with evil people. And, hell, some cultures would let deformed babies die of exposure.








Rambling complete.

There is lots of crazy out there. Most of it will not cross the legal threshold required for a not guilty verdict, however.
 
There is lots of crazy out there. Most of it will not cross the legal threshold required for a not guilty verdict, however.

Not for the right reasons, I'd say.
 
Not for the right reasons, I'd say.

They try to oversimplify legal insanity to knowing right from wrong. Well, there are a lot of crazy people out there who know what they just did was wrong, but they could never for the life of them sanely tell you why they did it.
 
They try to oversimplify legal insanity to knowing right from wrong. Well, there are a lot of crazy people out there who know what they just did was wrong, but they could never for the life of them sanely tell you why they did it.

Inability to tell right from wrong is one of the definitions here, actually. I mean, there are more words, but that's basically it.


But the other one is the more common one that should matter: inability to conform one's conduct to the law. I think that captures a crime committed in sincere belief of a delusion more than the other. You can know that killing a person is generally wrong but believe it is thoroughly appropriate because they are part of a conspiracy made up of X,Y,Z (usually A-Z) groups and the person they killed was trying to kill them or whatever.

So it's more that they know that killing is generally wrong, but think they killed for a right reason. Their reason would make perfectly logical sense IF their delusion were reality.....except it's nowhere near reality.
 
Inability to tell right from wrong is one of the definitions here, actually. I mean, there are more words, but that's basically it.


But the other one is the more common one that should matter: inability to conform one's conduct to the law. I think that captures a crime committed in sincere belief of a delusion more than the other. You can know that killing a person is generally wrong but believe it is thoroughly appropriate because they are part of a conspiracy made up of X,Y,Z (usually A-Z) groups and the person they killed was trying to kill them or whatever.

So it's more that they know that killing is generally wrong, but think they killed for a right reason. Their reason would make perfectly logical sense IF their delusion were reality.....except it's nowhere near reality.

I agree. But, does that hold up in court? I doubt it would in say, Texas or Florida.
 
Back
Top Bottom