Skip to comments.
Louisiana Woman Who Killed Her 11-Year-Old Daughter Released on Probation
Alexandria, LA, Daily Town Talk ^
| 07-11-03
| Robb, Julia
Posted on 07/11/2003 7:10:19 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:49:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
COLFAX -- In March 2000, Paula Pinckard shot her 11-year-old daughter Aubrey to death before shooting herself in their Rock Hill home.
On Thursday, Pinckard was released from Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, formerly Feliciana Forensic Facility, a hospital for the criminally insane, according to Grant Parish District Attorney Jay Lemoine.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetowntalk.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: colfax; crime; insanity; jaylemoine; la; mentalhealth; paulapinckard; probation
Cannot be with children under 15 -- wow, what a perceptive court and judge.
Isn't LA justice just "peachy"?
To: All
2
posted on
07/11/2003 7:13:13 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Theodore R.
Her attempted suicide was to shoot herself in the stomach?
To: Theodore R.
>"The treatment team said she had had a psychotic episode" when she shot her daughter, Lemoine said, and they feel an extremely small chance exists that Pinckard will have another episode.
Anyone wonder
why the Taliban think we
are a sick people?
To: Theodore R.
Higgins said Pinckard's psychiatrists testified that if she had not taken Prozac, her condition may never have manifested itself. So, she's only crazy when she takes the anti-crazy pills, right? As long as she remembers NOT to take her medication, she'll be fine.
That's a twist.
To: Theodore R.
This is just sick.
And behind this lies Prozac being passed out like candy because someone broke a nail and is depressed. Psychosis, while on Prozac, is a very real potential. Unfortunately, the prescribing doctors do not inform the patient or the patient's family to keep an eye on their mental status. Nor do the docs do a thorough assessment to determine the patient's primary condition. (In this case, the woman had a "hidden" bi-polar condition, a deadly mis-diagnosis).
Having been on the receiving end of someone's violent Prozac psychosis, and having a friend, who, in the past, shut the garage door and turned the car on until she realized the suicidal thoughts were because of the Prozac (SHE had to inform HERSELF about the side effects) this is not a drug to be handed out indiscriminately.
6
posted on
07/11/2003 7:36:50 AM PDT
by
Dasaji
(Today's witchcraft is tomorrow's technology.)
To: Theodore R.
I have always had a problem with the "not guilty by reason of mental defect" defense.
Answer me this:
How is a person who kills you because they are mad at you any less dangerious than someone who kills you in a mental fit?
How is a peson that intentionally kills you more dangerious than a person who is mentally retarded robs and kills you?
I submit that the person who is "sane" has a better chance of rehabilitation than someone with a defective brain. Not that I feel that the penalty should be different.
Let's just say that some mental incompetent supposedly does not understand what they are being punished for - does that make them any less of a danger to society? They still committed the crime - and have proven that they are capable to murder.....
I thought mental hospitals were for people with psychiatric problems so that they either have a safe place to live and get help to exist, or to treat people to possibly get them in a condition that they can live in society.
Prisons are for criminals. A murder is a criminal - regardless of his "mental state". If the murderer had the mental ability to pull the trigger/swing the knife, etc. then they are guilty of the crime - period.
And the SCOTUS decision a while back making it illegal to execute the "mentally retarded" is so rediculouis - where in the Constitution does it grant the "protection" to retarded people? Cruel and unusual punishment - tell that to the murder victim and the family. Cruel and unusual punishment would be castrating a driver for running a stop sign. Crule would maybe be burning at the stake. Cruel and unusual punishment would be forcing someone to look at nude pictures of Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton......
In all seriousness - the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, I believe, was to prevent the use of midieval torture against people.
How about this - if society insists that people be able to use the insanity plea (or for any other murder case where the criminal gets less than life in prison or death penalty) - if the perp is freed on parole/release from institution and murders again - the lawyer(s) who defended the perp, the doctors who cleared the perp as safe, and the judge who believes all the crap are held equally responsible for the later murder(s) or crimes.
To: Theodore R.
There should not be an insanity defense when it comes to murder, or any violence for that matter.
8
posted on
07/11/2003 8:14:19 AM PDT
by
tkathy
To: Theodore R.
Again, I see the government is flexing it's muscles.
9
posted on
07/11/2003 8:22:33 AM PDT
by
freekitty
To: Theodore R.
This(I Wish)is pretty remarkable!I don't have a problem with her being refused a conceal/carry!!
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson