http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9898294/

I don't know what pisses me off more, the fact that the parents could twist religion around so much to justify the killing of their own child in a brutal fashion, or the fact that the woman now just sits there and blames her husband rather than taking responsibility for her own actions.

Hehe, idiots.

That makes me sick.

Sickening doesn't even begin to describe it.

****...

Haha, silly people.

Horrible.

If she's a long-time mental health patient, the anti-psychotics she was given are probably a strong reason why she would do something like this.

Why are these types of people even allowed to breed?

or better yet, allowed to hold office, BADUMCHING!

Fools.

They ripped pages out of a bible? Isn't that a sin?

Some people are sick.

The people who breed most are typically the ones who you wouldn't want to breed.

Now where did i put my shorgun.....

screw + ball

Yay for eugenics! Yay for Massassi!

This is exactly why I only watch the Discovery channel on TV. Too many ****ed up people in this world. Gah. Damn.

What a bunch of ****ing idiots...they should break the husband and wife's arms, stab them and drown them. Bastards.

An eye for an eye. This still pisses me off so ****ing much.

well it makes me angry, but at the same time, it has brought to light yet again that I am in fact superior to many more people on Earth, cos they're crazy religous freaks, and I'm an absolutely amazing person

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

But not as amazing as me! But close enough!

no, it's just sacreligous. whitch is a no on a tecknacality.


that's horrable, how could thoes people still have there children/ where is protecive services?

You skipped english class once too many in school. :p (hehe kiddin)

That's scary. (the story I mean)

So, either she's criminally insane or she wanted to kill her kid and make it look like she was criminally insane. In either case, a good old fashined rocket launcher in the face should do the trick.

Eww. That's horrible.

Torturing them is pointless if your going to kill them anyway. Are they supposed to learn a lesson from that?
When someone is so far gone like that I say they are beyond punishment. Just kill them and make the world a little better. Any torture before-hand is just making it (the world) worse.

This is something that caught my eye towards the end of the article:
Now, am I misunderstanding that or did it just say they'll probably kill him unless he confesses to the crime? How valuable is a confession obtained through coercion? And is obtaining it that way even constitutional?

Yes, what they are accused of is horrible and, given what's been reported, they probably were/are nuts, but even people who are suspected of such horrible things still have the same rights to due process as anyone else.

Imagine you were wrongfully accused (not saying they are, I don't know enough about this case either way) but just imagine, and the police/prosecutor/whoever confronts you and says they'll be trying to get the death penalty unless you plead guilty. Does that not reduce to "confess or we (try to) kill you"? And at that point does it really matter at all if your confession is true?

It's a bout admitting guilt, which shows some remorse.

What interests me is why someone with a mental illness like that allowed to be in charge of a family. Should someone noticed and call for treatment?

And how did two people like this meet?

Why should remorse evoke lenience?

If the judicial system is going to maintain any kind of consistency, it should base its verdicts on what happened before and during the crime, not what comes after. Punitive law is based on cause and effect. "You commit the crime, you do the time." Whether or not the convicted feel bad about what happened should be irrelevant. They may not do it again once they understand the consequences of their actions, but the fact remains they did it this time, and they should receive the appropriate punishment so that other potential criminals may understand the (unavoidable) consequences. [edit] I'm not saying they should be an outrageous example, but that every single case should be an accurate example of every other similar case, thus cementing the judicial consistency. [/edit]

Circumstances, insanity (temporary or otherwise), etc. before/during the crime are a different matter, since they actually have a causal relationship to the crime.

I hope it's clear what I mean.

Masq and Avenger both have good points (Masqed Avenger? hmm..)

It's true that admitting guilt and feeling remorse are good signs, and ones likely to reduce a sentance.
But it's also true that deals are regularly made along the lines of 'admit to the lesser crime or we'll try and get you for everything' and something similar may in fact be happening here.