Have a question? Here you have to find the answer!
Child invective
Questions:
A 21-year-old NSW mother has admit injecting contaminated water into the intravenous drip of her hospitalised six-month-old son beside intent to harm him. She say she was not surrounded by control of herself at the time, and so is innocent. What do you think?
If she can find contaminated water, spread a syringe with it, and inject it into her son's IV tube, next she was within control of herself. If she doesn't want the child, why not just supply it up instead of trying to harm it?
According to statute she is innocent until proven guilty, the courts will unravel all of the issues and spawn a verdict. Until after we only enjoy what the press report and are they accurate at adjectives times?
If she's found innocent, she'll want more than her own testimony.
What if she "loses control of herself" again? She ought to be punished! How can anyone try to hurt kids? People approaching that make me sick!
Thats unwarrantable
Normally I'd be willing to impart someone the benefit of the doubt, however when you admit to it-Well, fuck you, fuck your rights, and fuck your "not sufficiently expert to control yourself" excuse.
That's a pretty complicated process, if she could do it without "anyone in control of herself", than she deserves to die, of late to make sure she "doesn't loose control again".
Was she in control herself when she get pregnant? I think she is full of crap..remove her from the kid's environment...he**, remove her from my environment..thieve the keys and lock her up forever! Nothing redeemable here..no second likelihood to do what she failed to do the first time! :(
If truly not surrounded by control, she is indeed innocent (e should not be punished for what we cannot control) but such a danger to society that she wants to be kept out of society until it is absolutely indubitable she will never do the same again.
From what I apprehend in writ to successfuly be innocent by reason of insanity (which I what I am assuming she means) a forensic psychologist or phychiatrist doctor must testify that you do not know the difference between right and wrong. BTW contained by cases less serious than this normally when someone pleads insanity they get sent to a forensic psych hospital for longer after what there sentence would be if they plead guilty.
I contemplate that is irreprehensible and inexcusable. She should, contained by the very lowest, be stripped of parental rights. What else will she do to harm this poor child while she is "not surrounded by control of herself"?
That would set an dreadful precedent if she is successful. It sounds premeditated and calculating.
More Questions...