Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Crime 2

1. "He said he in fact did do the shootings, however, only with the intention of relieving pressure"

2. Not guilty by reason of insanity.
Yates' attorneys never disputed that she drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001. But they said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, thought Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.
Doesn't Satan exist?

I was told by the pastor to denounce Satan when becoming a godfather during a baptism ceremony. I did (No problem there. I can do unicorns and gryphons too.). But the assumption was that Satan exists and one should not follow his ways.

If Satan exists, then isn't Yates even more guilty for following Satan's ways? In a state that practically rejoices in exacting capital punishment (and damn the innocents), shouldn't she be burned at the stake?

2 comments:

MT said...

Yes. This is a wonderful ruling. I hope its logical implications go somewhere within our judicial system and government. Might fade away quietly, though, as I doubt any fundie Christian politico will be daring to make a national issue about whether or not Satan is real.

helmut said...

It's always fun to see the "God spoke to me" defense. Works for Pat Robertson; doesn't work for the poor unconnected bastard in the penal system.