Baby removed from mother by mad woman...

[Ed De Gramo]

Saw on BBC News worldwide last week that an American woman was killed and had her baby cut from inside her :bitchy::bitchy:

Can't believe that sickos would stoop to that level....

[da-robster]

Saw on BBC News worldwide last week that an American woman was killed and had her baby cut from inside her :bitchy::bitchy:

Can't believe that sickos would stoop to that level....
source

[Ed De Gramo]

source

News Story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535540,00.html)


A woman suspected of carving a nearly full-term baby girl from her friend's womb and passing the newborn off as her own was being held on $2 million bail Thursday.

Julie Corey, 35, has been charged as a fugitive from justice. She appeared in district court in New Hampshire via video from the county jail, a day after she was arrested at a homeless shelter in the state, allegedly with the live infant.

The baby is said to be "in fairly good health," police said. The infant's mother, 23-year-old Darlene Haynes, was about 8 months pregnant when she was killed.

Corey did not waive extradition to be brought back to Massachusetts. The judge scheduled a hearing for Aug. 30.

She said little during the hearing, at which Judge Gerald Boyle ordered all police affidavits in the case sealed.

[Hannah_hfc]

Absolutely disgusting story, was also just as shocked at the Suns headline for it... 'Womb Raider' :bitchy: :grr:

[Woody1985]

Absolutely disgusting story, was also just as shocked at the Suns headline for it... 'Womb Raider' :bitchy: :grr:

Although I was appalled by the story and seen it on the news a few days ago that is quite a funny headline.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Saw on BBC News worldwide last week that an American woman was killed and had her baby cut from inside her :bitchy::bitchy:

Can't believe that sickos would stoop to that level....


I think the point that has to be remembered is that the woman was insane, and as such she had no idea what she was doing. The Sun's headline is apalling, makes it sound like it's a joke rather than a human tragedy.

[Woody1985]

I think the point that has to be remembered is that the woman was insane, and as such she had no idea what she was doing. The Sun's headline is apalling, makes it sound like it's a joke rather than a human tragedy.

If she's insane she should be put in a cell for the rest of her lift or put down. One of the two.

These pleads of insanity for reduced sentences etc really do my nut in. If you're ****ed in the heid, you're ****ed in the heid and shouldn't be allowed out IMO.

[Phil D. Rolls]

If she's insane she should be put in a cell for the rest of her lift or put down. One of the two.

These pleads of insanity for reduced sentences etc really do my nut in. If you're ****ed in the heid, you're ****ed in the heid and shouldn't be allowed out IMO.

If the pleas for reduced sentences do your nut in, does that make you *****ed in the head (nice term for people who suffer the agony and indignity of an enduring illness).

You don't know what you are talking about, otherwise you wouldn't be using such insensitive language. Grow up.

[Hibs Class]

I think the point that has to be remembered is that the woman was insane, and as such she had no idea what she was doing. The Sun's headline is apalling, makes it sound like it's a joke rather than a human tragedy.

Where did you read that she was insane? I would imagine an insanity defence is likely, but I don't recollect seeing anything to indicate that she had previously been diagnosed as such.

[Woody1985]

If the pleas for reduced sentences do your nut in, does that make you *****ed in the head (nice term for people who suffer the agony and indignity of an enduring illness).

You don't know what you are talking about, otherwise you wouldn't be using such insensitive language. Grow up.

At what point do you draw the line though?

Someone is mentally insane and a danger to others around them. Do you reduce their sentences because it wasn't their fault because they are ill and put everyone elses safety in jeopardy or do you think of the harm that this type of person will cause others? I'm all for the latter.

I'm talking about the seriously ****ed up people here i.e the person who has committed the above crime and not just anyone who has a mental illness.

[Phil D. Rolls]

At what point do you draw the line though?

Someone is mentally insane and a danger to others around them. Do you reduce their sentences because it wasn't their fault because they are ill and put everyone elses safety in jeopardy or do you think of the harm that this type of person will cause others? I'm all for the latter.

I'm talking about the seriously ****ed up people here i.e the person who has committed the above crime and not just anyone who has a mental illness.

I think the test is whether someone had the capacity to understand the consequences of what they were doing when they did it.

Some mental illnesses cause people to completely misinterpret the world around them, they have delusional beliefs about themself and the intentions of others. It is the illness that has caused the person to act in the way they have - not a deliberate, rational decision.

The whole point about being mad, is that your perception of reality has been altered. It would be cruel to put such people down, or to lock them away for ever. There are people paid to assess those who plead insanity, and it is not as easy to convince people you're mad, as you might think.

They are not criminals, they are mad.

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------


Where did you read that she was insane? I would imagine an insanity defebce is likely, but I don't recollect seeing anything to indicate that she had previously been diagnosed as such.

I guess I was going by the title of the thread "Mad Woman etc", and assumed that the OP knew she was insane.

Besides what sane person would do such a thing?

[Dashing Bob S]

Is it not possible that she killed her friend and instantly regreted it, then tried, in her own mentally confused way, to save the baby by getting it out?

This is not meant to be facietious, but an attempt to make sense of her motivation.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is it not possible that she killed her friend and instantly regreted it, then tried, in her own mentally confused way, to save the baby by getting it out?

This is not meant to be facietious, but an attempt to make sense of her motivation.

There have been cases documented of women believing their baby is Satan, and killing it to save the world. I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would have done this - because the chances of the child living were surely reduced by the way it was delivered.


"She had a lot of post-traumatic stress and was obviously not a well woman," the employee said. "She said a child had been taken from her before, and it's not going to happen again."

Seems to be a lot of speculation at this stage, but I won't be surprised if it comes out this woman is not fit to plead.

[Woody1985]

I think the test is whether someone had the capacity to understand the consequences of what they were doing when they did it.

Some mental illnesses cause people to completely misinterpret the world around them, they have delusional beliefs about themself and the intentions of others. It is the illness that has caused the person to act in the way they have - not a deliberate, rational decision.

The whole point about being mad, is that your perception of reality has been altered. It would be cruel to put such people down, or to lock them away for ever. There are people paid to assess those who plead insanity, and it is not as easy to convince people you're mad, as you might think.

They are not criminals, they are mad.

I guess I was going by the title of the thread "Mad Woman etc", and assumed that the OP knew she was insane.

Besides what sane person would do such a thing?

That's my point though. If they do not have a rational sense of the world then they are a danger to everyone around them and therefore, IMO, they should be locked up forever, preferably in a mental instutution where they can be looked after.

I agree that it's difficult to fool someone into thinking you're insane but my point relates to people who are insane. Because they are insane they should not be allowed into the free world.

Apologies for my inconsiderate burst in my post earlier. I could have articulated that people who are ****ed in the heid are mentally ill a lot better to say the least. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's my point though. If they do not have a rational sense of the world then they are a danger to everyone around them and therefore, IMO, they should be locked up forever, preferably in a mental instutution where they can be looked after.

I agree that it's difficult to fool someone into thinking you're insane but my point relates to people who are insane. Because they are insane they should not be allowed into the free world.

Apologies for my inconsiderate burst in my post earlier. I could have articulated that people who are ****ed in the heid are mentally ill a lot better to say the least. :greengrin

First, I'm sorry I was rude to you it just touched a raw nerve, as I think a lot of people have no concept of what mental illness is, and how affects sufferers and their families.


What my thinking is, is that someone who commits a crime whilst they have no concept of what they are doing, can't be guilty of anything. It's just a sad accident of life, like a tree falling on your car when you are driving in a storm. Nobody's fault.

That said, such "illnesses" are treatable, and the person can be helped to find a path through life that is acceptable to them. So to others it looks like they have got off with a crime. I reckon though, that when they are well they will suffer enough from guilt.

I think it is probably the best thing for people who are a danger to themselves and others to be in a safe environment such as a hospital. If they recover though, they have to be helped to reclaim their place in society. Contrary to popular belief, people have a much better chance of recovery in a supportive community.

Thanks for keeping the discussion going, and once again I apologise for letting emotions and personal bias get in the way of the debate.

[Woody1985]

First, I'm sorry I was rude to you it just touched a raw nerve, as I think a lot of people have no concept of what mental illness is, and how affects sufferers and their families.

What my thinking is, is that someone who commits a crime whilst they have no concept of what they are doing, can't be guilty of anything. It's just a sad accident of life, like a tree falling on your car when you are driving in a storm. Nobody's fault.

That said, such "illnesses" are treatable, and the person can be helped to find a path through life that is acceptable to them. So to others it looks like they have got off with a crime. I reckon though, that when they are well they will suffer enough from guilt.

I think it is probably the best thing for people who are a danger to themselves and others to be in a safe environment such as a hospital. If they recover though, they have to be helped to reclaim their place in society. Contrary to popular belief, people have a much better chance of recovery in a supportive community.

Thanks for keeping the discussion going, and once again I apologise for letting emotions and personal bias get in the way of the debate.

I agree that a lot of people haven't had experience of people with mental illness. However, I'm not one of those.

My mum became friends with a guy who had spent years of his life in ADs. He was a normal guy and very friendly until one day he tried to poison her by putting asbestos in a cup of tea he had made her and then tried to stab her when she tried to escape the house. He was deemed safe to return to society when quite clearly he wasn't.

Now, it's easy enough to say that it was a one off etc but how many other cases are there like that which we never hear about?

One of my friends has also been in the AD and had to be taken in again only a few months back after he flipped for no reason and tried to attack his gran and little sister.

They've had him drugged up for years and sometimes he's like a zombie. We get him out the house as much as possible and get him involved in stuff but he never changes. He's a big guy and I suspect one day he will just explode and cause someone some serious harm. However, the doctors are content with filling him up with pills all time. I should add that when he tried to attack his gran/sister he had stopped taking his pills because he said they were ****ing his head up. Ironic eh!

I've no basis to back this up but I don't think that people who are seriously mentally ill can't be cured. As you say, nature may cause a tree to fall and land on your car, at the same time, some people are just naturally ill in the mind and can never be cured IMO.

No need to apologise, given your profession you're probably one of the main stakeholders in this discussion / law and therefore your views will be formed on your own experience. Just like my experience is based on mentally ill people I know / have known.

Edit; had can instead of can't earlier.

[Twa Cairpets]

FR

You seem to know your stuff on this topic.

In your opinion is the legal/policeing system in the UK set up to define accurately what is an act carried out by someone who has mental health problems?

I was reading the thread and got thinking. If a guy comes out of a club - sober - and decided to glass someone in the face, most people would be justified to describe him as a nutter. My hazy understanding of this would be that he would be in psychological terms either a violent sociopath or a psychopath to do something lie this. Does this count as mentally ill, or would it be put down to him being a bad person?

No edge or agenda here, just curious

[IndieHibby]

FR - using your 'falling tree' analogy:

1) If the tree had been identified as having a structural weakness which could preclude it falling over, thus posing a risk, would it then not be sensible to cut it down?
2) If the tree had been superficially healthy up to the point of it's demise, would anyone consider putting it back up because the tree is not to blame for the weakness/illness it is suffering.?

People who suffer from mental illness deserve support and treatement, in the same way we help all weaker members of society. I have had mental illness in my family - it is no fun, that's for sure.

But where an individual human (it is important to make this distinction, as being human affords someone the ability to get close enough to people to pose a serious risk - few other threats have this feature) has been shown to display threatening behaviour or mental illness which has been proven to be a pre-determinant of threatening behaviour, then they need to be kept secure.

Individual rights of freedom have to be rescinded where they pose a risk to the freedom of others (to live in safety).

[Phil D. Rolls]

FR

You seem to know your stuff on this topic.

In your opinion is the legal/policeing system in the UK set up to define accurately what is an act carried out by someone who has mental health problems?

I was reading the thread and got thinking. If a guy comes out of a club - sober - and decided to glass someone in the face, most people would be justified to describe him as a nutter. My hazy understanding of this would be that he would be in psychological terms either a violent sociopath or a psychopath to do something lie this. Does this count as mentally ill, or would it be put down to him being a bad person?

No edge or agenda here, just curious

I honestly don't know, I will have to look into that further, I reckon you'd have to be incapable of understanding that what you had done was wrong. I'm going to look up some stuff.


FR - using your 'falling tree' analogy:

1) If the tree had been identified as having a structural weakness which could preclude it falling over, thus posing a risk, would it then not be sensible to cut it down?
2) If the tree had been superficially healthy up to the point of it's demise, would anyone consider putting it back up because the tree is not to blame for the weakness/illness it is suffering.?

People who suffer from mental illness deserve support and treatement, in the same way we help all weaker members of society. I have had mental illness in my family - it is no fun, that's for sure.

But where an individual human (it is important to make this distinction, as being human affords someone the ability to get close enough to people to pose a serious risk - few other threats have this feature) has been shown to display threatening behaviour or mental illness which has been proven to be a pre-determinant of threatening behaviour, then they need to be kept secure.

Individual rights of freedom have to be rescinded where they pose a risk to the freedom of others (to live in safety).

You can't put a tree back up again, unfortunately. I know that some people are out there who are potentially dangerous if they don't comply with their treatment, and I believe that if they fail to comply they have no defence in court.

Likewise if they fail to comply with the conditions of their freedom - eg taking medication, they can be brought back in.

I really need to find out more on the subject. I think this is one of those situations where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Here is what the Scottish Law Commission recommended in 2003 regarding the defence of insanity.


The core element of the defence is that by reason of a mental disorder at the relevant time, the accused was unable to appreciate the nature of the conduct forming the basis of the charge.

http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/downloads/nr_insanity_dp122.pdf

It seems like a bummer to interpret for psychiatrists. What was their mental state at the time the crime was committed.

It's OK if the person is apprehended soon after the act, they can be whisked off to a place of safety (aka psychiatric hospital) and an assessment of their mental state is possible. Otherwise all you have is the person's own word for the state of their mind.

Before you know it every crim. will be putting their pants on their head, two pencils up their nostrils, and answering every question from the polis with the word "wibble".

At the end of the day, assessing "sanity" is very difficult indeed, as it is such an arbitary expression.