Plano woman who cut off baby's arms to be released

[Big Don]

Plano woman who cut off baby's arms to be released



Associated Press/ABC/KVIA
Excerpt:- November 7, 2008 6:35 PM ET
DALLAS - A Plano woman who killed her baby by cutting off the girl's arms will soon be released from a state mental hospital.
Dena Schlosser was committed after she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2004 death of baby Maggie.
Schlosser testified at trial that she killed the girl because she wanted to give the infant to God.
Prosecutor Curtis Howard says Schlosser will be released within the next month into outpatient treatment because her doctors believe she's mentally stable.
END EXCERPT


Begin OUTRAGE.
This is a prime example of why NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY should never be a verdict. Less than four years after brutally murdering her infant daughter, this woman is "mentally stable" and should, according to her doctors be released?! She murdered her child, and has not been punished for it. Because of the verdict NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY she will NEVER be punished for her heinous crime.
NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY should be outlawed, Guilty, but, insane would still allow punishment.
John Hinkley Jr shot President Reagan and others, he is now allowed visits "supervised" by his elderly (He was born in 55, that would make his parent's pretty old) parents! This man shot the President of The United States, and has never, nor will he ever, face punishment for crippling James Brady, wounding police officer Thomas Delahanty, and Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy.
No criminal should ever be allowed to plea Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

 

[Tez3]

So, exactly how do you punish someone who is insane?

 

[Big Don]

So, exactly how do you punish someone who is insane?

If they are so insane that they cannot be trusted to behave in public, we have built places for others who refuse to behave in public, they are called prisons, and are generally not as nice and cozy as hospitals.

 

[Tez3]

Mentally ill people then are just people who refuse to behave in public?

 

[terryl965]

Well this is just wrong in so many cases, we as a society owe it to the people to do the right thing. Mantally ill people that takes a child life should never be release back into society.

 

[Big Don]

Mentally ill people then are just people who refuse to behave in public?

People who cannot or will not control themselves in society don't deserve the deference this woman or Hinkley have been shown. These are not poor unfortunates who live with mental illness, these are people whose actions caused irreparable harm, no, people whose crimes cause irreparable harm do not deserve a place in society. Or, rather, society has places for them, as I noted before, prisons.

 

[Tez3]

People who cannot or will not control themselves in society don't deserve the deference this woman or Hinkley have been shown. These are not poor unfortunates who live with mental illness, these are people whose actions caused irreparable harm, no, people whose crimes cause irreparable harm do not deserve a place in society. Or, rather, society has places for them, as I noted before, prisons.

You know this for sure?


Prison is not the correct place for these people even accepting if your premise is correct. You are then asking prison officers to deal with something, mental illness,that they aren't trained for and putting their lives at risk if these patients/prisoners are insane and violent. Punishing people who have no control over their actions because they are insane is pointless and cruel. Yes, they should be removed from society into a secure facility but there's little point in persecuting people who are literally not in their right minds.

 

[morph4me]

Prison or a mental hospital, a person who commits crimes like this woman or Hinkley, should never be set free in society again. I have very very little faith that a person who was sick enough to do what she did, can ever be cured. Mentally ill people who pose no threat to anyone but themselves is another story, but if they commit violent criminal acts against others, there should be consequences, but I'm also a proponent of a penal system as opposed to a correctional system.

 

[Big Don]

If one is so crazed at some point to CUT OFF the arms of an INFANT, that person should never, ever, be allowed to be free.

 

[Tez3]

I don't think there's any argument as to whether these people should be free or not, I think we all agree that they shouldn't. the argument though is whether prison is the right place for them, I don't believe it is.
To put prison officers at risk or to put extra duties on them that they aren't trained for isn't right nor is it right that other prisoners should be put at risk, not all are murderers, rapists etc. Prisoners who are because of not paying fines or who are guilty of relatively minor crimes or white collar crimes should be punished no doubt but shouldn't be put at risk of being killed because an insane person shares a cell with them!
The treatment of insane 'prisoners' as with all prisoners should be humane, it degrades us if it is not. There is no reason for us to descend to an inhumane level of punishment. We must remain on a level that puts us above the criminals or else we are no better than them.

 

[terryl965]

I bleive folks like this need to be in a room with rubber walls for life.

 

[grydth]

In my opinion, this presents the ideal case for civil confinement.

Society generally punishes those who know right from wrong and are able to control their actions. This insane person could not do so at the time of the killing.

Then there are the rights that the rest of us have - not to have to be repeatedly endangered every time this killer goes off the deep end.

I'd propose relatively comfortable facilities, with visitation, activities, scenery, learning opportunities.... I'd just never let this individual near children again. Not ever.

 

[Tez3]

In my opinion, this presents the ideal case for civil confinement.

Society generally punishes those who know right from wrong and are able to control their actions. This insane person could not do so at the time of the killing.

Then there are the rights that the rest of us have - not to have to be repeatedly endangered every time this killer goes off the deep end.

I'd propose relatively comfortable facilities, with visitation, activities, scenery, learning opportunities.... I'd just never let this individual near children again. Not ever.

I agree totally.

 

[arnisador]

She claimed she did this for religious reasons. Is she being released because she's been cured of religiousness?

Certainly 'not gulty by reason of insanity' makes sense to me...but that doesn't mean releasing the person is a good idea. Don't punish them as such, perhaps, but do keep the rest of us safe.

 

[MA-Caver]

That this woman mutilated her own child to death, to me says she's too crazy to live, bring on the death penalty because if she's too nuts to even realize what she's doing is horrible beyond description then she is too nuts to be released back into society and too nuts to be trusted to be around other living human beings. Had she done this to an adult IMO is a different story... she still should not be released but at least an adult would've had a fighting chance. An infant does not. The jury should've been made to feel the child's pain and confusion at what was happening and the terrible draining sensation of massive blood loss on top of the humongous wall of pain it was feeling during and after she lost her arms.
I would've cried for death had I been on the jury. Same with ANY child murderer, insane or not.

 

[myusername]

I don't know the full details of this case nor am I privy to this persons case notes so I can only speak generally on this issue. As a mental health/psychiatric nurse I may very well be biased but I know that SOME people can be rehabilitated and though capable of horrific crimes when mentally unwell if completely compliant with their treatment/ medication and well supervised will pose no danger to society. This lady should only be released if she has maintained stability, is compliant with her mediaction, has insight into her condition and is well supervised. Like I say I have no information on this particular specific case so am not making a judgement personally. I am just hoping that the professionals involved are making a clinical judgement that maintains the safety of the public and this lady.

I am totally against punishing those that have no control over their actions due to mental illness. That does not mean I am against containment of those that are unable to be rehabilitated.

 

[Big Don]

At the very least, if this woman and others like her are "cured" and can be treated in an out patient manner, then they are competent to be punished, i.e., pay the penalty for the crimes they commited.

 

[myusername]

At the very least, if this woman and others like her are "cured" and can be treated in an out patient manner, then they are competent to be punished, i.e., pay the penalty for the crimes they commited.

I suppose it depends on your view of mental illness and how much responsibility/control a person has over it.

For me it is the same as a physical illness, it could happen to anyone at any time. If a person has a heart attack whilst driving a truck, crashes and kills a child should that person be locked up/punished/put on death row when cured? Like I said in my first post I don't know the ins and outs of this specific case but if this person was insane at the time of this horrific incident and now is stable, has insight and accepting treatment and well supervised I personally believe it is a humane and civilised decision to move to community care. If this woman has insight in to her condition she has to live with what she has done which I think is punishment enough.

For what its worth there are a lot of "ifs" in this decision so I can only hope and trust that the professionals involved are making the right clinical judgement based on a water tight risk assessment.

 

[Empty Hands]

No criminal should ever be allowed to plea Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

Mens rea is a critical element in every single crime in our system, with the exception of statutory rape. Your reactionary solution, if implemented, would attack the very basis of our criminal justice system. Without the requirement of mens rea, every action you take that has a harmful end would be punishable as a crime. Run someone over by accident? Murder. Mistake someone's coat for your own and walk off with it? Theft. You get the idea.

Don't allow your outrage to substitute for rationality.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

My question is it safe to release her. I myself would be discussed to see her and would think to cut her arms off but would not because I would hold it back, but will everyone be able to. Then again, although I am not arguing either way, some would say she deserves to die. Is she really safe to even be released.

I myself don't believe she should be let out. She should be in some kind of institustion that makes for her being away from people.

This would be along the lines of what I would be thinking....

In my opinion, this presents the ideal case for civil confinement.

Society generally punishes those who know right from wrong and are able to control their actions. This insane person could not do so at the time of the killing.

Then there are the rights that the rest of us have - not to have to be repeatedly endangered every time this killer goes off the deep end.

I'd propose relatively comfortable facilities, with visitation, activities, scenery, learning opportunities.... I'd just never let this individual near children again. Not ever.