|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't a defense. I can only speculate but I imagine a person seducing/raping a child would use the child's terminology to "reach" the child.
Like this quote from the article:
Toward the end, LaFave tells the student, "I don't want you lying to your mom" and then asks him to make a "pinky promise." LaFave repeats her request and the boy agrees and after being asked, says, "Pinky promise."
Mike Sinacor, the prosecutor in the case, told FOX News that the calls — said to be made by the boy at the request of authorities probing the allegations — could be useful in determining LaFave's state of mind. LaFave is expected to use the insanity defense when the case goes to trial in April.
[emphasis/bold writing are mine]
This is not a "defense" at all. It clearly shows she used a child's thinking, something akin to:
"I double dog dare you"
or
"Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye, I double secret swear"
This, to me, clearly shows her CLEAR understanding of getting into the boys head and manipulation.
And of course the following line from the article:
Attorney John Fitzgibbons said she had some "profound emotional issues that are not her fault."
Ummm, sorry John, but does very little to absolve her of her actions of seeking out, seducing/raping, and manipulating a **14** year old boy.
Also, while the article DOES use the word rape (about freaking time) there are no words from the local Molestation Survivors group.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:53 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
LaFave's acts of apparent manipulation of the boy do not go to the heart of an insanity defense, because the accused's acts are not at the core of that legal argument.
Doesn't matter whether she raped him or set him on fire ... it's her "state of mind" that matters when the insanity defense is used, and especially the presence of mental illness.
Found this excerpt in a recent issue of Psychiatric Times --
"Currently, the requirements for insanity vary by state. The typical standards require that a person be unable to differentiate between right and wrong at the time of the crime. The inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of conduct must be the direct result of a mental disease or defect. Such defects typically include psychotic disorders, mood disorders and organic conditions such as mental retardation. Virtually no state allows sociopathy to be grounds for an insanity defense, and voluntary intoxication cannot by itself end culpability."
"... Public perceptions are that the insanity defense occurs far more commonly than records indicate. In fact, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of criminal proceedings and is successful in approximately one-quarter of those cases. Furthermore, defendants who are found insane spend as much, or more, time in state custody than their criminally convicted counterparts. The media may foster the notion that criminals get away with feigning mental defect, only to be released and recidivate. However, the insanity plea is actually based on a long-standing legal tradition and is rarely successfully completed. In fact, approximately 70% of insanity acquittals result from agreements between opposing attorneys, in which the prosecution agrees that society would be better served by placing the defendant in treatment, rather than in prison (Blum, 1992; Bogenberger et al., 1987; Cirincione, 1996; Rogers et al., 1984; Smith and Hall, 1982).
Outside of assisting in sentencing, there are two places for mental disease in the legal system. The first is a defendant's ability to understand the trial process. People who do not understand the nature of the charges or the functioning of the legal system are considered unfit for trial. More germane to this article, IF MENTAL ILLNESS HAD A DIRECT EFFECT ON A GIVEN CRIMINAL ACT, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE FOUND LEGALLY INSANE."
Full article at --http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p020452.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insanity defense? She isn't insane. Maybe a 'dumb raping bimbo defense' would be better, that way the jury will see her for who and what she really is.......a raping paedophile who used her authority to manipulate an under age, vulnerable, and impressionable boy. And when he asked her if they should start using condoms she said during the tapes "Oh you're being weird." So I take it she wanted to get pregnant because she "felt" for him and wanted to have his baby as a way of showing this perverse affection for him? Or did she want to have MORE power over him and money from paternity fraud extortion?
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insanity defense? She isn't insane.
She may not be, but her defense attorneys will pull any trick that they think might work to try to get her off; they want, after all, to rack up their victories. The prosecutors, on the other hand, have their own personal agendas in addition to any concern they may have for jailing the guilty while freeing the innocent.
In all probability, the prosecutors will claim that she was manipulating the child, while defense attorneys, if they decide they can pull it off, will try to use her child's talk as part of a claim that she is emotionally still a child. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a claim that she was abused when she was 14 and that her emotional development stopped at that point. They may even claim that she's mentally a 14-year-old, despite any academic achievement beyond that level. This could be the basis of a claim to mental illness. The matter could come down to the question of whether she was manipulating the child, knowing it was wrong, or did she have a mental illness that caused her to relate to the child on his own level.
If the prosecutors don't think they have a good chance of winning the case, and any possible associated public favor, they may well decide to bargain, irrespective of what they may feel is in society's best interest.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if her developement stopped at 14, that does not mean anything. First of all, she managed to get through college, which shows the ability to handle responsibility. Second of all, 14 year olds know right from wrong, and if male are sometimes tried as adults in criminal cases. So even at the mental age of 14 she should be able to understand that a teacher should not have sex with a student, and a 24 year old does not belong with a 14 year old. The insanity plea in this case is just a stretch, even if it is true she has stopped maturing at 14.
BQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BQ says:
Even if her developement stopped at [age] 14, that does not mean anything. First of all, she managed to get through college, which shows the ability to handle responsibility.
Or perhaps this says more about the academic rigor of your typical education college than it does about her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the enlarged picture, she looks like a human version of the Bride of Chucky... the eyes and smile are SERIOUSLY creepy.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
