As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche quoted “It is impossible to suffer without making someone pay for it; every complaint already contains revenge.” The defendant Mary Barnett has been charged with the crime of second degree murder of the death of her six-month-old baby. In some sense, a mother who killed her own child ,out of personal relationships, is obviously guilty. However, based on current evidence, the verdict could be arguable. Barnett qualified some criteria of a second degree murderer such as intentionally leaving Alison alone to die in their apartment. Due to her mental state, Barnett was not aware she was leaving her children instead thought the child will taken care of whey she was at California. It comes to the reason that Mary …show more content…
Barnett’s mental state was considered as an excuse to the prosecution as another way to get out of being charged with murder. However, based in Dr. Bloom’s statement, Mary had “lost touch with reality” and was in a despair state to fixing her problems with her fiancé Tim. The prosecution failed to see that emotionally disturbed people are actually human and they are likely in making mistakes like humans. They might think they are doing the right thing, but are actually doing the exact opposite. Yet, none of the psychiatrists never prescribe any mediation to Mary. For example, Dr. Bloom has known Barnett more than Dr. Parker since baby Alison was four months old. If the depression began after the childbirth of Alison, why did not Dr. Bloom helped Barnett or went to social services for the sake of Alison? Since, she is not mentally fir to take care of her child, why did not the doctor or close friends intervene to help? These are the questions that were ignored throughout the whole trial. If they were addressed earlier, would baby Alison been
Milwaukee teacher Katherine Gonzalez had a twisted way of helping her 11-year-old "chronically depressed" student cheer up.
“…and on the charge that the prisoner did with others to conspire to destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States in violation of the laws and customs of war-Guilty” were the words that soared out of Wallace’s mouth at the end of the trial. It was then that Henry Wirz was found guilty. Why? Why was he found guilty? This decision was based on the emotional aspect of the witnesses, and not by the actual guilt. Not only my defense, but also the defense of Wirz’s attorney, Baker, the testimony of the defendant, Henry Wirz, shows that Wirz should not have been found guilty.
On October 19, 1927, a “feebleminded,” young woman was robbed. This young woman’s name is Carrie Buck and her ability to conceive children was taken from her without her consent or knowledge. This decision would not only impact those already affected by unauthorized sterilization, but for those whom would later be sterilized. The Supreme Court’s ruled the sterilization of Carrie Buck to be constitutional on the grounds of it being better for society, better for the individual, and eugenic evidence.
The actions that a parent takes in order to protect or support their child cannot be judged in a courtroom, because parents cannot describe the way that they feel knowing that their offspring is gone forever. In a court of law, Matthew Fowler should be tried for justifiable homicide, and he should possibly plead temporary insanity. A parent cannot control their violent actions, because the feelings that one feels towards a child is much stronger than any other emotion could ever be. Frank Fowler's life was taken in a horrific and traumatic matter, and for this, a parent cannot undergo the normal mourning process. A parent like Matthew Fowler could not go through each day knowing that their child's murderer is walking the streets freely. A mother, like Ruth Strout, would go crazy seeing that heartless person do everyday things that her son/daughter can no longer do. This would drive a person to temporary insanity, causing them to lash out and kill the murderer. Matthew Fowler had reason to kill Richard Strout, even if it would result in hurting Matthew in the end.
During the Of Mice and Men debate, it considered the following case: George Milton’s decision to shoot Lennie Small was morally justified. Before the trial started, I voted for the motion because I agreed that it was right to kill Lennie. I chose to side with the proposition team because of several reasons. First of all, I placed myself in George’s feet, the killer of Lennie, and thought about what I would’ve done in his situation. I concluded that I would’ve done the same exact thing as he did. George was the only person who truly cared for Lennie and has always stick by his side through thick and thin. He wanted what was best for Lennie and chose the best idea available at the time, which was unfortunately to shoot Lennie in the back of the head. If he didn’t allow Lennie a peaceful death,
The death of an infant can modify one’s characteristic and psychological behavior to the point of suicide. In Bobbie Ann Mason’s "Shiloh" she leaves the ending of the story for her readers to draw their own conclusion of how Norma Jean leaves her husband Leroy. Most readers see her divorcing Leroy and starting a new life as an independent woman (Cooke 196 par.1). When in fact, this is a story about a bereaved mother who at the end, takes her own life due to the guilt over her child’s death.
Carla Washburn, an incredible, inspirational woman that has sadly witnessed the 3 closest male figures in her life all pass on. This has resulted in Carla becoming depressed over the unbearable experience. Carla embraced in giving back to the community and that’s not surprising because she’s a person of spirituality. While, Carla is the client and is suffering through grief, it’s likely she’d benefit immensely from creating a program to work with the kids in the community and may give her a sense of worth she’s been seeking since these 3 tragedies.
When a person takes another person's life, then that person should have his own life taken as well. Beautiful dark-haired Gina and her sweet brown-eyed babies, did not ask for, nor want, their precious live...
This leads the reader, in this case, me, to reach beyond the text and wonder at what point does society think it’s acceptable to commit murder, and why sometimes it is a crime, and other times it is not. In our justice system, the only acceptable case to commit murder is in self-defense; is it self-defense to kill a baby, one that the mother invited, due to irresponsible actions? Steven Pinker offers an explanation after comparing all mammals and personhood: “… the right to life must come… from significant traits that we humans happen to possess,” Pinker claims (199). He goes on to define those traits as the, “… ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness,” and having, “… experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people,” amongst other things (Pinker 199). In that case, does it make it acceptable to kill a newborn because you find out he or she is mentally ill? How can you earn what you’re not given? How is that morally acceptable? These are all rhetorical questions that answer
Every day, people make decisions that are either right or wrong. After reading the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison, it is fair to say that Sethe’s decision on killing her baby Beloved was a reasonable decision. The first thing that comes to mind when finding out that Sethe killed her own child is disturbing and the reader immediately thinks that is very wrong and not okay, but the reader can’t just instantly think that if you do nott give it deep thought on why exactly she did what she did.
Her psychological damage done from the mistreatment by her mother and having a baby non-consensually should be taken into consideration. None of these make murder okay; However she was clearly immature and scared at the time. It was a mistake that she made when she was very young. If she had remained in jail for 50 years, she would be a senior citizen when released. She would miss the majority of her life and her youth to pursuit major accomplishments and redeem herself. Taking away one’s the opportunity to contribute to the world or pursue their goals would almost be taking away his/her life. Our society should promote the value of life and its potential. Originally, I did not think of the sentence in that way, but the class discussion invoked thought. Recently turning 18 years old, I slowly fathomed the magnitude of a near life sentence for a crime committed as a teenager. Why should one’s opportunity be taken away if he/she has the desire and potential to redeem himself/herself? I came to the conclusion that her redemption attempt deserved a shot. All people, especially young ones, deserve a second chance and allowing her to pursue her degree gave her
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
When viewed from a strictly medical, psychological aspect, Andrea Yates medical history indicates that after the birth of her first child, she began to suffer from various forms of depression and suicide attempts. If one only examines the paper trail and doesn’t think beyond what the medical history does or does not indicate, then perhaps, Andrea would be innocent by reason of mental insanity as the 2006 acquittal suggest. However, when viewed form a legal aspect there are several inconstancies that challenge if this former nurse was insane or if she in fact premeditated the murder of her children as well as her acquittal.
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
“There are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent", argues the ...