Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've long held to the principle that... Individuals are personally responsible for the consequences and lack thereof of their actions.
In a free and democratic society the failure to acknowledge that is to, quite literally, encourage the next and last step for a society. A transition to anarchy where everybody does what they want and damn the consequences. We have but to look around us at what an attitude of 'personal iresponsibility' has wrought and how far down this society has ethically and morally tumbled.
This Amy Bishop case will once again, in my opinion, show a failing in our system of juris prudence where NO-BAH-DEE is ultimately held accountable.
For that is the essence of the legal ruling of "Not Guilty, by reason of insanity". How can this be? The court is obliged to hold someone accountable for the commission of a 'physical act of violence' upon another. The state of mind is ancillary and secondary to that "responsibility".The ruling should be "GUILTY, with insanity as a consideration". Such a sentence determines beyond any doubt the guilty party. If said party, during a trial, has been sufficiently shown to be judged "legally insane" then the secondary consideration, read as part of the legal determination...", with insanity a consideration" is then brought to bear in the sentencing portion of said trial.
That is the only rational and just way to handle such.
Insanity is the best her defense can muster, but it won't work. The esteemed professor has a date with the needle..
The system failed alright, but the failing has developed over the last 20 years. Now the system will make up for it's failings. It's sad it took a tragedy to make the system work, but that is typical. See Ft. Hood shooter. It's easier to do your job after the fact... Hindsight is a wonderful thing, no matter how many lives it costs...!
Apparently, she'd previously shot and killed her brother...
Quote:
Bishop shot her brother during an argument and fled on foot with the 12-gauge shotgun before being captured by police, who handcuffed her and took her to the station. The case file, including the report of the incident, disappeared shortly thereafter, he said.
I've long held to the principle that... Individuals are personally responsible for the consequences and lack thereof of their actions.
In a free and democratic society the failure to acknowledge that is to, quite literally, encourage the next and last step for a society. A transition to anarchy where everybody does what they want and damn the consequences. We have but to look around us at what an attitude of 'personal iresponsibility' has wrought and how far down this society has ethically and morally tumbled.
This Amy Bishop case will once again, in my opinion, show a failing in our system of juris prudence where NO-BAH-DEE is ultimately held accountable.
For that is the essence of the legal ruling of "Not Guilty, by reason of insanity". How can this be? The court is obliged to hold someone accountable for the commission of a 'physical act of violence' upon another. The state of mind is ancillary and secondary to that "responsibility".The ruling should be "GUILTY, with insanity as a consideration". Such a sentence determines beyond any doubt the guilty party. If said party, during a trial, has been sufficiently shown to be judged "legally insane" then the secondary consideration, read as part of the legal determination...", with insanity a consideration" is then brought to bear in the sentencing portion of said trial.
That is the only rational and just way to handle such.
That we're even discussing this is proof that women get off easy when it comes to crimes.. You'd just say a man was evil and deserves to be guilty of murder, whereas excuses like insanity would be made for a woman.
She was directed to go to "anger management" and never did. So how does an educational institution give a person with a record like hers a free pass?
What record? She's never been convicted of anything.
"The job application for the University of Alabama in Huntsville asked, 'Have you ever been convicted of an offense other than a minor traffic violation?' Amy Bishop, who took a tenure-track job there in 2003, answered the question with a simple 'no.' Technically, she was correct. She was never charged with her brother’s death, and though she was sentenced to probation in the IHOP incident, she was never officially found guilty. She and her husband, James E. Anderson, were questioned in connection with the mail bomb sent in 1993 to one of her mentors at Harvard, Dr. Paul A. Rosenberg, a professor of neurology, but nothing came of it." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us...p&st=cse&scp=2
Well to be honest, we've just heard one side of story. I'll wait until everything is investigated before jumping on a bandwagon. Especially one headed by a school who was trying to get her fired. waaahaaaa
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ceece
