Alyssa Bustamante

[verenaerin]

So do you totally dismiss the possibility of the influence of a medication, or is your point that it doesn't matter?

[Jenn]

This.

More voices of reason are badly needed in this thread.

Come now, Vetus. Mind-altering drugs alter the mind. Fact. That is the entire purpose of the drug. It's not a stretch to believe that when someone's mind is being altered by a drug designed to do just that, there may be some nasty consequences. If someone is truly not in their right mind when committing a wrongdoing, then they are not fully culpable. That is also a fact. Whether or not this girl's behavior had anything to do with this drug is something none of us will ever know, but the fact remains that she was taking a psychotropic drug on a daily basis.

[verenaerin]

This.

More voices of reason are badly needed in this thread.

Come now, Vetus. Mind-altering drugs alter the mind. Fact. That is the entire purpose of the drug. It's not a stretch to believe that when someone's mind is being altered by a drug designed to do just that, there may be some nasty consequences. If someone is truly not in their right mind when committing a wrongdoing, then they are not fully culpable. That is also a fact. Whether or not this girl's behavior had anything to do with this drug is something none of us will ever know, but the fact remains that she was taking a psychotropic drug on a daily basis.

I don't think they are arguing that. I think that they are saying that it doesn't matter.

[Vetus Ordo]

Another quite incontrovertible fact is that she planned and killed a 9 year old child in cold blood. This is indisputable. Even if the lawyer can successfully argue that her culpability is somewhat lessened by the drugs she was taking - something almost impossible to prove since taking antidepressants is not known to turn people into sadistic murderers - she must still duly pay for her premeditated act of homicide. It's that simple.

Execute her and may God have mercy on her soul. And pray for the murdered child and her family. They're the real victims here.

[DrBombay]

Then how does one explain the millions who take anti-depressants and somehow resist the urge to murder 9 year old kids?  Normal people don't suddenly become murderers because they take a pill. People are still responsible for their own actions.  People still get charged with manslaughter even if they didn't intend to kill, therefore culpability is diminished but punishment is still applied and justice served.  That is not what happened in this case.  This girl didn't become a scheming, calculating murderer because she was popping Prozac.  

[verenaerin]

Another quite incontrovertible fact is that she planned and killed a 9 year old child in cold blood. This is indisputable. Even if the lawyer can successfully argue that her culpability is somewhat lessened by the drugs she was taking - something almost impossible to prove since taking antidepressants is not known to turn people into sadistic murderers - she must still duly pay for her premeditated act of homicide. It's that simple.

Execute her and may God have mercy on her soul. And pray for the murdered child and her family. They're the real victims here.

Your statemnt about antidepressants is untrue.

Taken from the National Institue of Mental Health

In the FDA review, no completed suicides occurred among nearly 2,200 children treated with SSRI medications. However, about 4 percent of those taking SSRI medications experienced suicidal thinking or behavior, including actual suicide attempts—twice the rate of those taking placebo, or sugar pills.
In response, the FDA adopted a "black box" label warning indicating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in some children and adolescents with MDD. A black-box warning is the most serious type of warning in prescription drug labeling.
The warning also notes that children and adolescents taking SSRI medications should be closely monitored for any worsening in depression, emergence of suicidal thinking or behavior, or unusual changes in behavior, such as sleeplessness, agitation, or withdrawal from normal social situations. Close monitoring is especially important during the first four weeks of treatment. SSRI medications usually have few side effects in children and adolescents, but for unknown reasons, they may trigger agitation and abnormal behavior in certain individuals.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/child-and-adolescent-mental-health/antidepressant-medications-for-children-and-adolescents-information-for-parents-and-caregivers.shtml

I do agree that at this point, it would be impossible to prove either way.

[verenaerin]

Then how does one explain the millions who take anti-depressants and somehow resist the urge to murder 9 year old kids?  Normal people don't suddenly become murderers because they take a pill. People are still responsible for their own actions.  People still get charged with manslaughter even if they didn't intend to kill, therefore culpability is diminished but punishment is still applied and justice served.  That is not what happened in this case.  This girl didn't become a scheming, calculating murderer because she was popping Prozac.  

The fact that antidepressants don't turn a majority of its users into murders is a worthless argument when you are talking about side effects to a medication.  Just because those affected are small does not mean they are not affected. I do agree that she still must have been tried and the proper punishment given. The thing that we will never know is if Prozac had any part in this. It is unprovable either way.

[Jenn]

Another quite incontrovertible fact is that she planned and killed a 9 year old child in cold blood. This is indisputable.

Of course she did. Have I argued otherwise?

- something almost impossible to prove since taking antidepressants is not known to turn people into sadistic murderers -

It is only impossible to prove because the pharmaceutical companies will do everything in their considerable power to quash any evidence of it.

she must still duly pay for her premeditated act of homicide. It's that simple.

And she will, Vetus. She will. But what I am arguing that someone who is not in their right mind should not be held fully culpable for their transgressions, and that it must be said that someone on mind-altering drugs can hardly be assumed to be completely 'in their right mind'. Does that mean that anyone on mind or mood-altering drugs can commit acts of violence without taking any responsibility? It does not.  But when you are taking drugs that mess with the mind, it's logical to suspect that some of those minds might go haywire. These are dangerous and powerful drugs. Don't underestimate them.

[Petertherock]

The problem with Vetus is he's blood thirsty. It's not Catholic to desire revenge and I believe that's what he is doing. Obviously I can't see into his mind but that's what I get with his posts. Someone talked about what it would be like to be the family or parents of the girl that got killed. While that's a fair argument, how would you feel if you were the family of Alyssa? If your daughter had a mental illness with medications that caused her to have no emotions, would you still be blood thirsty?

[Crusading Philologist]

Obviously, redemption and forgiveness are important parts of the Faith, but look at what St. Thomas has to say here:

I answer that, Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another's evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good."

If, however, the avenger's intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.