MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #14

[mia g]

If she is still taking Prozac, that could be why. I have known a few people that were prescribed Prozac for depression. The Prozac seemed to erase all of their emotions, it took away their sad, happy, worried and mad emotions. It was really weird to know someone before Prozac and after.

But I have also seen Prozac patients that couldnt hold an emotion in to save their life!! It works both ways.

 

[bigflaw]

Originally Posted by Kimster
Actually, I've been wondering how she felt about it after the fact as well. I still don't think it has any bearing on AB having consequences for her actions as dictated by the law.


How so?? Many criminals, especially murderers, express remorse. That remorse doesn't buy them a ticket to a mental facility.

Alyssa Bustamante simply does not meet the standard of one criminally insane; in Missouri nor in most other states.

What are the exact standards? And have you talked to her psychiatrist?

 

[eyes4crime]

Perhaps what Jodibug was trying to say is that she believes Alyssa has an anti-social personality disorder, sometimes known as sociopathic. Alyssa's statement to the police and on the internet indicates a lack of empathy and disregard of human life - a hallmark of ASPD. The professional literature is replete with evidence indicating that ASPDs are not treatable and its often best to focus on protecting society.

To me, it seems Alyssa does have a personality disorder - maybe a mix of them. Borderline (cutting, lack of boundaries) and anti-social/psychopath for starters. Literature shows that personality disorders are not amendable to treatment - antisocial/psychopathy actually gets worse with treatment. sure, Alyssa is depressed, but any sociopath will turn that around into a 'poor me' scenario. mho
Since I'm not an advocate of the death penalty - why not relegate this child to a life time of being researched? just a thought.

 

[Jodibug]

For everyone who wants her rehabilitated.... just for the sake of argument, I'll say that there is a chance that maybe she could be rehabilitated.

Unfortunately the only way to *know* for sure is to let her back on the loose and then wait to see if she kills anyone else.

But that is a chance that I just don't think the general public should have to take. Do you really think that innocent children should be put at risk just to test your theory?

 

[bigflaw]

OK, so here is the law about Missouri insanity defense: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5520000030.HTM

I do not see anything that suggests AB could not use this as a defense.

 

[Bibliophile]

What are the exact standards? And have you talked to her psychiatrist?

And why would you think I would need to talk to her psychiatrists to make such a statement? As I have written before and most people following this case know, there has been testimony provided as to her mental health history as well as numerous statements from those in the community that support the testimony.

Missouri, as many other states, goes by the M'Naghten Rule for insanity pleas. The burden of proof is on the defendant.

 

[bigflaw]

Also, here is the definition of "Mental disease or defect" in Missouri law. Seems pretty open to interpretation to me.

"Mental disease or defect defined.

552.010. The terms "mental disease or defect" include congenital and traumatic mental conditions as well as disease. They do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, whether or not such abnormality may be included under mental illness, mental disease or defect in some classifications of mental abnormality or disorder. The terms "mental disease or defect" do not include alcoholism without psychosis or drug abuse without psychosis or an abnormality manifested only by criminal sexual psychopathy as defined in section 202.700, RSMo, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed to repeal or modify the provisions of sections 202.700 to 202.770, RSMo. "

This is evidence to support my statements. Such evidence would be good to have before guessing what is or is not a fact.

 

[bigflaw]

And why would you think I would need to talk to her psychiatrists to make such a statement? As I have written before and most people following this case know, there has been testimony provided as to her mental health history as well as numerous statements from those in the community that support the testimony.

Missouri, as many other states, goes by the M'Naghten Rule for insanity pleas. The burden of proof is on the defendant.

OK, so she has to prove she's mentally ill enough to qualify. Do you know for a fact that she is not?

 

[Bibliophile]

OK, so here is the law about Missouri insanity defense: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5520000030.HTM

I do not see anything that suggests AB could not use this as a defense.

Anyone could use it. The chances of success are another matter entirely.

 

[steph572]

OK, so here is the law about Missouri insanity defense: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5520000030.HTM

I do not see anything that suggests AB could not use this as a defense.

I see something in there that should prevent this defense: "552.030. 1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person's conduct." BBM

Her premeditation, evidenced in the digging of the grave, and the hiding of the body shows that she knew and could appreciate that what she had done was wrong, therefore she is not legally insane.

 

[steph572]

Anyone could use it. The chances of success are another matter entirely.

You are absolutely right. I stand corrected. They can try it but I wouldn't expect it to work.

 

[Bibliophile]

OK, so she has to prove she's mentally ill enough to qualify. Do you know for a fact that she is not?

I really have no interest in arguing with you. Truly. You obviously believe that she should not go to prison. That's certainly within your right.

However, you're demanding a standard that cannot be met. Even the court operates on beyond a reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence. Given the testimony provided and the statements of those who knew her, the balance of probabilities indicates she doesn't come close to meeting the standard required.

Please research this and I think you will find what I am saying is true. I could provide you with countless examples, but you could no doubt find them faster then I could type.

 

[eyes4crime]

This is one way to look at it - She has been in therapy - she is on Prozac - she must have had murderous fantasies to say ' I wonder what it's like to kill someone' - and she acted on those murderous fantasies, she was unable to control her murderous impulses...all my opinion - so what's the cure for that? TIA

 

[bigflaw]

I see something in there that should prevent this defense: "552.030. 1. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person's conduct." BBM

Her premeditation, evidenced in the digging of the grave, and the hiding of the body shows that she knew and could appreciate that what she had done was wrong, therefore she is not legally insane.

So crazy people can't plan to do crazy thing? I don't think that's necessarily related.

 

[steph572]

So crazy people can't plan to do crazy thing? I don't think that's necessarily related.

I disagree. She planned, schemed, killed, and attempted to evade responsibility by concealing the body "very well". She's not LEGALLY insane!

 

[bigflaw]

I disagree. She planned, schemed, killed, and attempted to evade responsibility by concealing the body "very well". She's not LEGALLY insane!

Please define Legally Insane, and provide factual evidence from the court in Missouri. Where exactly does it state that her actions exempt her from this.

 

[emeraldeyes85]

I disagree. She planned, schemed, killed, and attempted to evade responsibility by concealing the body "very well". She's not LEGALLY insane!

One can kill and not realize it is wrong, also, there are any number of reasons for burying a dead body besides simply wanting to hide it. Dead bodies stink for example, an insane person who didnt know it was wrong to kill could still bury the body not to hide it but because it simply stank.

Reasonable doubt is all it takes. You cannot state for certain what was going on in her mind at the time of the act. She has pleaded not guilty so apparently her lawyer plans to defend against these accusations and feels there is enough reasonable doubt to do so.

 

[steph572]

One can kill and not realize it is wrong...

I agree. Those people are legally insane.

 

[steph572]

Please define Legally Insane, and provide factual evidence from the court in Missouri. Where exactly does it state that her actions exempt her from this.

Simple enough... Insane is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis.



http://social.jrank.org/pages/1357/Legal-System-Insanity-Defense-Overview.html

 

[bigflaw]

Simple enough... Insane is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis.



http://social.jrank.org/pages/1357/Legal-System-Insanity-Defense-Overview.html

Really? "Insane is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis"? How is that even remotely a definition?