Toddler stabbed to death in Dublin

13-07-2017 12:07AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It generally doesn't appear out of nowhere in an instant, however.

Of course not. And even if this woman was suffering from a psychotic illness, it would be probable that this was not the first manifestation, if that is indeed the case.

If you accept that there's always a risk with schizoid disorders of having a psychotic episode and doing something like this, then what's your solution? Should people be placed under automatic surveillance as soon as it's diagnosed?

Of course not. just because individuals with psychotic illness are disproportionately highly-represented amongst perpetrators of family-homicide, it's quite a leap to even imply that most individuals with psychotic illness are violent, let alone capable of killing.

I mean no disrespect, but I can't imagine what you were even thinking by asking that question. It's a bit like looking at African-American crime statistics and asking "should all African Americans be surveilled?"

It's an incredibly daft question.

Muir · 13-07-2017 12:07AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Then it begs the question of why she was able to raise a child before

Someone can develop psychosis for a number of reasons - so it can be a symptom of Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, it can be due to drug use, it can be as a result of a traumatic event or occur postpartum. This means it's something that can just happen, even to you or any of the rest of us. In those already diagnosed with Schizophrenia for example, they are not constantly in a state of psychosis, some people respond well to treatment and live a normal live without many psychotic episodes, some don't, sometimes the medication stops working and has to be changed.

There are an infinite number of reasons and possibilities.

Muir · 13-07-2017 12:09AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I made that comment in response to Muir's "you obviously haven't experienced it yourself" comment - I have, and it hasn't changed my views at all.

I wasn't talking about depression or suicidal thoughts - I'm talking about psychosis, where someone has become detached from reality. Also, I'm sorry you went through that & glad you made it through.

13-07-2017 12:19AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So will I. But either way, I believe that individual should be removed from public society for the safety of everybody else in it.

The fact here is that an innocent child was killed in cold blood and in an extraordinarily violent manner. That is not in dispute. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that somebody who is capable of that - whether because of mental illness or because of anger management issues and just being a jerk - is somebody who should not be put into a position in which they can do anything like this again.

NObody is saying people shouldn't be kept safely away from endangering others while they're seriously ill. Literally nobody.

Nobody is disputing the horrific details of that babys death. Nobody.

What I am objecting to is your post earlier where you stated:

Personally, I am pre-judging this case. Now obviously the person who has been arrested is innocent until proven guilty. However. The individual who attacked that child with a knife is a 100% irredeemable evil scumbag. All that needs to be proven in my view is who actually did it, and innocent until proven guilty should of course apply - but in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned, the only relevant factor should be determining who's hand was holding the knife at the time and whether they were under immediate physical duress (IE, was somebody literally pointing a gun or other knife at them under threat of instant death if they didn't follow orders) - if the answer to that question is a no, then the person who was holding the knife should go to jail until their dying breath, no ifs, no buts.

No level of psychiatric difficulty can justify taking the life of an innocent third party. None.

Regardless of their state of health. An irredeemable evil scumbag who should go to jail until their dying day, no level of psychiatric difficulty, et al.

Just to point out again, nobody thinks it justifies anything. Literally nobody said anything about it being justification.

If you want to label seriously ill people as irredeemable evil scumbags who should be locked in jail for life, I'm going to say that your opinion is uninformed, poorly expressed, lacking compassion and demonstrates zero insight or understanding of the difference between acts committed in cold blood for gain or pleasure, and those sad instances where people are not responsible for actions taken while affected by serious illness outside their control.

kylith · 13-07-2017 12:19AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There's plenty of people with mental illness and skitzophrenia that aren't murdering scumbags, mental illness doesn't make you an evil person. Murdering a toddler does.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And he shouldn't have.

We know that a child got stabbed to death - that doesn't seem to be in dispute. Ergo, somebody out there is the rotten, vile scumbag who did it. I haven't seen any suggestion that he did it to himself. Is that not a fair conclusion? I'm not assuming guilt on any individual's part until somebody has been conclusively proven to have been the person holding the knife, but as I said, somebody out there is the vile scumbag responsible. And absolutely nothing can change their status as a vile scumbag - an act such as this can have absolutely no relevant mitigating factors or sob stories.

Mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis means that you are incapable of telling reality from delusion and right from wrong. It may mean that they are murderers, for example, but they absolutely convinced that the person they killed was an alien replicant, or a demon, or evil, or that something terrible will happen if they don't kill that person. It's hard for someone who hasn't experienced it to understand (I haven't (thankfully), but I have a member of my extended family who is affected, and they were convinced that a member of government was trying to have them killed).

These people need help. They may be murderers, but they are not the run-of-the-mill scumbag killing for convenience or profit or expediency that some would think; they are ill. They do not know what they are doing. Not to say that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, but they need treatment and care more than they need locking up in a prison that is ill equipped to help with their mental issues. In the vast majority of cases they are much more of a danger to themselves than they are to other people.

Assuming that the perpetrator of this crime is legitimately mentally ill.

hatrickpatrick · 13-07-2017 12:20AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course not. And even if this woman was suffering from a psychotic illness, it would be probable that this was not the first manifestation, if that is indeed the case.

Of course not. just because individuals with psychotic illness are disproportionately highly-represented amongst perpetrators of family-homicide, it's quite a leap to even imply that most individuals with psychotic illness are violent, let alone capable of killing.

I mean no disrespect, but I can't imagine what you were even thinking by asking that question. It's a bit like looking at African-American crime statistics and asking "should all African Americans be surveilled?"

It's an incredibly daft question.

psychosis
sʌɪˈkəʊsɪs/
noun
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

That to me, perfectly describes somebody who should be under some kind of observation for fear of what they might do while relieved - albeit perhaps temporarily - of their moral compass and perception of consequences. And definitely shouldn't be solely in charge of helpless dependents. If you know you're liable to have episodes like this in which you could literally do anything and not fully realise it until afterwards, don't you have a responsibility to take action to safeguard any dependents you have in the event that it does happen?

I know a guy who's been through this and he voluntarily presented at inpatient treatment during one of his "clear spells" for this exact reason, indeed - terrified of what might be happen the next time he had an episode. And he didn't even have any dependents of any kind - pets, kids, he even lived alone.

hatrickpatrick · 13-07-2017 12:21AM

kylith wrote: »

Mental illness such as schizophrenia or psychosis means that you are incapable of telling reality from delusion and right from wrong. It may mean that they are murderers, for example, but they absolutely convinced that the person they killed was an alien replicant, or a demon, or evil, or that something terrible will happen if they don't kill that person. It's hard for someone who hasn't experienced it to understand (I haven't (thankfully), but I have a member of my extended family who is affected, and they were convinced that a member of government was trying to have them killed).

These people need help. They may be murderers, but they are not the run-of-the-mill scumbag killing for convenience or profit or expediency that some would think; they are ill. They do not know what they are doing. Not to say that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, but they need treatment and care more than they need locking up in a prison that is ill equipped to help with their mental issues. In the vast majority of cases they are much more of a danger to themselves than they are to other people.

Should people like this be allowed to have dependents in their care without any other person involved to protect those dependents in the event of a psychotic episode?

Muir · 13-07-2017 12:36AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

psychosis
sʌɪˈkəʊsɪs/
noun
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

That to me, perfectly describes somebody who should be under some kind of observation for fear of what they might do while relieved - albeit perhaps temporarily - of their moral compass and perception of consequences. And definitely shouldn't be solely in charge of helpless dependents. If you know you're liable to have episodes like this in which you could literally do anything and not fully realise it until afterwards, don't you have a responsibility to take action to safeguard any dependents you have in the event that it does happen?

I know a guy who's been through this and he voluntarily presented at inpatient treatment during one of his "clear spells" for this exact reason, indeed - terrified of what might be happen the next time he had an episode. And he didn't even have any dependents of any kind - pets, kids, he even lived alone.

There aren't enough resources to monitor and care for the people in immediate distress, so how do you propose that every person with any mental disorder (which includes dementia and disability) is observed 24/7?

Most people with these illnesses will never cause any harm to themselves, or anyone else. We could attempt to watch every person with such illnesses, and some may not come to the attention of anyone until it's already too late - what you're proposing is impossible.

You know what the real best solution is? Understanding these illnesses, so that anyone suffering feels able to talk about it, so that someone suffering might not be too scared to seek help in case they are locked up or have their children taken away, or are branded a scumbag. Working towards having better services provided for those who need them, including better family supports.

kylith · 13-07-2017 12:45AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Should people like this be allowed to have dependents in their care without any other person involved to protect those dependents in the event of a psychotic episode?

Ideally, no. But life isn't ideal. People get pregnant, and it's impossible to watch everyone all the time for signs that they might be a danger. Sufferers also can't tell that they are a danger because their psychosis/delusion is reality to them. If you're convinced that, for example, the government is out to kill you are you going to go and tell a doctor, in the employ of the government? You can't trust anyone; anyone could be a spy or an agent.

It's like one of those TV shows where everyone but the hero has been brainwashed or something into being nazis, but the hero knows that that's not the way it should be, but no-one believes them and thinks their crazy.

Imagine knowing that your child has been replaced by a copy as part of a alien plan to take over the planet. You tell a friend or family member but they look at you like you're crazy and you realise that they don't believe you. They're going to lock you up cos they think you're crazy but you know, not think or believe, know that that isn't your child.

JP Liz V1 · 13-07-2017 01:43AM

RIP little one, sleep with the angels

I was sure it said mother a doctor was being questioned earlier on news

Game Face MCGee · 13-07-2017 08:51AM

Candie wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally, I am pre-judging this case. Now obviously the person who has been arrested is innocent until proven guilty. However. The individual who attacked that child with a knife is a 100% irredeemable evil scumbag. All that needs to be proven in my view is who actually did it, and innocent until proven guilty should of course apply - but in cases like this, as far as I'm concerned, the only relevant factor should be determining who's hand was holding the knife at the time and whether they were under immediate physical duress (IE, was somebody literally pointing a gun or other knife at them under threat of instant death if they didn't follow orders) - if the answer to that question is a no, then the person who was holding the knife should go to jail until their dying breath, no ifs, no buts.

No level of psychiatric difficulty can justify taking the life of an innocent third party. None.

Rubbish. For a start no one is saying it's justifying it, only perhaps explaining it. An important distinction.

Wasn't a guy found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity recently in Ireland? He was found not guilty because he was so seriously ill that he couldn't be held accountable for his actions, and he was rightly given the treatment and care he needed. There is no way someone so very sick can be dismissed as just evil and packed off to prison without the proper care.

I've no idea if this is a similar situation or if the person who did that terrible thing is just plain evil, but if they're so sick that they're not responsible for their actions and their doctor advises the court that this is the case, I'm not going to decide I know better and demand they're branded evil and sent to prison instead of hospital.

I don't believe in branding sick people scumbags and satisfying some lust for revenge by treating them the same as someone who commits some horrific act in full possession of their senses and in full knowledge of the import of their actions.

I'm not saying throw away the key, they defo should get treated if they have a mental illness but when they are well again they shouldn't just be let out, they should be told "now you were mental but u killed someone, you have to serve another X amount of years now your well again"

volchitsa · 13-07-2017 09:10AM

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I'm not saying throw away the key, they defo should get treated if they have a mental illness but when they are well again they shouldn't just be let out, they should be told "now you were mental but u killed someone, you have to serve another X amount of years now your well again"

I don't actually know what happens when someone is committed rather than being imprisoned (no such thing as maximum terms etc, so I'd imagine they could well spend the rest of their lives in a secure unit).

But assuming you're right and that some people may spend only a matter of months and then come out "cured", I think that's wrong. There's no reason why the killing shouldn't be classified as homicide (or Irish equivalent) - not murder, but someone was killed.

So if the person was "cured" quickly they could then do the remainder of the jail time for the killing.

Personally if I had killed my child while mentally unwell, I don't think my first concern on recovering my senses would be to ensure that I didn't do any jail time for the killing. I think I'd be glad to do so. A conviction of murder wouldn't be right IMO because the person didn't intend to kill the child, but there would be a legal recognition of the child's violent death.

Muir · 13-07-2017 09:37AM

The woman arrested yesterday (who other sources have said is the mother) has been charged. Source.

JupiterKid · 13-07-2017 09:39AM

Reading through this thread it saddens but doesn't surprise me how many spiteful, judgemental, reactionary and ignorant posters there are here.

13-07-2017 09:47AM

JupiterKid wrote: »

Reading through this thread it saddens but doesn't surprise me how many spiteful, judgemental, reactionary and ignorant posters there are here.

When a child dies at the hands of their parents, it's quite normal to be instantly disgusted, shocked and outraged. Same way as if a wife dies at the hands of her husband or vice versa. When you hear that a toddler is viciously and violently stabbed to death, that's definitely a pretty normal reaction to have. If other mitigating factors come out, then so be it but until that time, it's very normal to have a disgusted initial reaction.

Minderbinder · 13-07-2017 10:12AM

So since she has been charged with murder does that mean she's not a psycho? Would the police have done psychological evaluations themselves? Or do these tests occur after the charge?

Stheno · 13-07-2017 10:13AM

Minderbinder wrote: »

So since she has been charged with murder does that mean she's not a psycho? Would the police have done psychological evaluations themselves? Or do these tests occur after the charge?

She can plead not guilty by reason of mental illness

jackboy · 13-07-2017 10:14AM

Obviously, severe mental illness could be a factor here. However, there are thousands of children and partners being abused all over Ireland. Are all the perpetrators suffering from mental illness. No, only a minority. It's not a big step for abuse to lead to a killing.

We can't ignore the fact that there are a large group of people out there that just have that personality type. Nothing to do with mental illness.

Hector Savage · 13-07-2017 10:19AM

RTE news reporting that a woman has been charged with the murder.
No mention that it's the mother though.
Is someone else involved ?

Riskymove · 13-07-2017 10:24AM

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I'm not saying throw away the key, they defo should get treated if they have a mental illness but when they are well again they shouldn't just be let out, they should be told "now you were mental but u killed someone, you have to serve another X amount of years now your well again"

it can't be both really

if the justice system decides the person only committed the crime due to the mental illness and then they are deemed to be no longer mentally ill, there is no reason to then confine them as "punishment" - there is no threat viewed

they are treated rather than punished as they are deemed ill

13-07-2017 10:28AM

From DublinLive

A Garda spokesman said: "A woman in her early 40s who was arrested in relation to the homicide of an infant child that occurred on Monday evening 10th July, 2017 will appear before Criminal Courts of Justice, Court Number 3, this morning Thursday 13th July, at 10.30am."

That's happening right now as we speak. I'd imagine that's gonna be a difficult setting for all involved.

Muir · 13-07-2017 10:32AM

Think of it this way - if someone has a heart attack at the wheel of a car which results in them causing a car accident that kills someone, should they be sent to prison? If your answer to that is no, then similarly you should not believe in sending someone suffering from a mental disorder to prison.

We still don't know what happened here. For anyone asking, it was the woman arrested yesterday who was charged and a few places reported that to be the mother. The gardai also weren't looking for anyone else in relation to it, just waiting to speak to the mother. There are links earlier in the thread.

Neyite · 13-07-2017 10:36AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

RTE news reporting that a woman has been charged with the murder.
No mention that it's the mother though.
Is someone else involved ?

If the age range matches, then it's usually a reporters way of telling you who was arrested without naming them if they are not allowed to at that stage.

In this case, they reported that the mother was in her forties. Then they reported that Gardai were waiting to speak to her after her surgery. Then they've reported that Gardai arrested a woman in her forties. It's likely the mother.

volchitsa · 13-07-2017 10:36AM

jackboy wrote: »

Obviously, severe mental illness could be a factor here. However, there are thousands of children and partners being abused all over Ireland. Are all the perpetrators suffering from mental illness. No, only a minority. It's not a big step for abuse to lead to a killing.

We can't ignore the fact that there are a large group of people out there that just have that personality type. Nothing to do with mental illness.

Abuse doesn't just start with stabbing a child to death though. Either there are previous warning signs (which may only be clear in hindsight, but will still be there) or it was a single horrific incident, and in that case mental breakdown becomes a possible explanation.

What I don't agree with is the assumption that some posters seem to make that by definition anyone who kills their child has had a mental breakdown. As you say, we know that children are sometimes abused and maltreated for years, leading in some cases to their death. It would be equally mistaken to treat all violent child deaths as being just one of those two. It depends on what the evidence shows.

13-07-2017 10:37AM

Muir wrote: »

Think of it this way - if someone has a heart attack at the wheel of a car which results in them causing a car accident that kills someone, should they be sent to prison? If your answer to that is no, then similarly you should not believe in sending someone suffering from a mental disorder to prison.

By the same token, if someone is capable of carrying out a frenzied stabbing attack on a defenseless child, they shouldn't really be free to roam around. Are we just assuming a psychotic episode here by the way? Is there anything to suggest it? Say for example if the perpetrator was suicidal and decided to take the child with them through some sort of self appointed mercy killing but then couldn't go through with the initial plan, would that garner outrage or sympathy or both?

Yourself isit · 13-07-2017 10:37AM

JupiterKid wrote: »

Reading through this thread it saddens but doesn't surprise me how many spiteful, judgemental, reactionary and ignorant posters there are here.

I just love generalised ad Homs.

Hector Savage · 13-07-2017 10:37AM

Neyite wrote: »

If the age range matches, then it's usually a reporters way of telling you who was arrested without naming them if they are not allowed to at that stage.

In this case, they reported that the mother was in her forties. Then they reported that Gardai were waiting to speak to her after her surgery. Then they've reported that Gardai arrested a woman in her forties. It's likely the mother.

Tragic.
I know this sounds terrible, but I really feel for her, she has to live with that for the rest of her life.

volchitsa · 13-07-2017 10:40AM

Muir wrote: »

Think of it this way - if someone has a heart attack at the wheel of a car which results in them causing a car accident that kills someone, should they be sent to prison? If your answer to that is no, then similarly you should not believe in sending someone suffering from a mental disorder to prison.

We still don't know what happened here. For anyone asking, it was the woman arrested yesterday who was charged and a few places reported that to be the mother. The gardai also weren't looking for anyone else in relation to it, just waiting to speak to the mother. There are links earlier in the thread.

That depends, though. The Scottish bin lorry driver who killed people one Christmas there was found guilty of ignoring and even hiding that he had been suffering from blackouts. He has a large degree of responsibility.

OTOH, some people with mental illness have begged for help and been refused it. If they then went on to kill, I'd be inclined to at least consider possible responsibility of mental health services in those cases.

13-07-2017 10:45AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

Tragic.
I know this sounds terrible, but I really feel for her, she has to live with that for the rest of her life.

So does anyone who's ever killed a child, be it from accidentally hitting a kid while driving in your car or violent stabbing one to death.

Grayson · 13-07-2017 10:46AM

Neyite wrote: »

If the age range matches, then it's usually a reporters way of telling you who was arrested without naming them if they are not allowed to at that stage.

In this case, they reported that the mother was in her forties. Then they reported that Gardai were waiting to speak to her after her surgery. Then they've reported that Gardai arrested a woman in her forties. It's likely the mother.

The thing is though that the mirror and the sun named the mother yesterday but the IT and Indo didn't. So it can't be the law that's preventing the IT. maybe the mirror saw her being led from the hospital? But in that case they'd have reported that. Maybe they are just working on the same assumptions as you? Or maybe the IT and Indo have different standards.

It's weird either way.

Toddler stabbed to death in Dublin

Comments