PDA

View Full Version : Woman Who Killed Her 3 Kids Pleads Innocent


gblowfish
10-21-2005, 12:39 PM
This was a terrible story out of SF. Woman threw her 3 kids into the ocean off a pier and they all drowned. The State of California could seek the death penalty. Her public defender says she's on "suicide watch."

That's always been so ironic to me "Let's put her on suicide watch. We don't want her to die before we can put her to death."
I can't help but think laying a few belts, ropes and razor blades around her cell might be in order considering how awful this crime was. And if she's this whacked, why was she allowed to parent small children?

Story is here:

Mother Pleads Innocent to Killing Sons
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - The mentally ill woman seen dropping her young sons into San Francisco Bay pleaded innocent Friday to three counts of murder.

Lashuan Harris kept her head down and held her public defender's hand through most of the brief court hearing. She quietly answered "yes" when the San Francisco Superior Court judge asked if she was willing to waive her right to a speedy preliminary hearing.

Harris, 23, faces three counts of murder with special circumstances, making her eligible for the death penalty.

Her lawyer, Teresa Caffese, refused to address questions about Harris' mental state, saying only her client was under suicide watch. She's being held without bail.

"It's very, very difficult," Caffese said. "This can't be captured in words right now."

Authorities said Harris, a former nurse's assistant who suffered from mental illness, was seen putting her three boys in the bay Wednesday.

The body of Harris' middle child, Taronta Greeley, 2, was recovered late Wednesday near the St. Francis Yacht Club, about two miles from Pier 7. The other two Treyshun Harris, 6 and Joshoa Greeley, 16 months remained missing, but were presumed dead after so many hours in the water.

The U.S. Coast Guard called off its search Thursday afternoon, but the San Francisco police and fire departments continue to scour the bay for the two bodies. Harris' next court hearing was scheduled Oct. 28.

|Zach|
10-21-2005, 12:40 PM
They throw you in jail for that these days?

el borracho
10-21-2005, 12:47 PM
I never really understood the whole "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea. Isn't the important part whether or not the person commited the crime? I don't really care if you did it 'cause you are nuts. You still commited the crime. You are still a menace to society. Go to jail.

el borracho
10-21-2005, 12:48 PM
Although I guess the names she gave her children do support her insanity plea.

Amnorix
10-21-2005, 12:58 PM
I never really understood the whole "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea. Isn't the important part whether or not the person commited the crime? I don't really care if you did it 'cause you are nuts. You still commited the crime. You are still a menace to society. Go to jail.

Not in English/American law.

The fundamental pieces of commiting a crime under our law involves a mental component (mens rea) and an act (actus reus) (no guarantees that the latin parts are correct). You cannot have a crime without both.

The mental component is why you cannot put a kid under a certain age (usually under 7) in any kind of jail, no matter what they do. They're too young to understand the implications of their actions, or that they are illegal. Therefore, they cannot commit a crime, technically.

The physical component is why pure thoughts are not a crime. Even if you run around saying you're going to kill someone, you cannot be put in jail for that. As soon as you BEGIN to do SOMETHING, any little thing, towards commiting that crime, however, it can be a crime (attempted X, or conspiracy to commit X), and you can go to jail.

(one exception -- threatening the President's life might be a crime -- not sure how that one works).

Anyway -- part of this whole deal means that if you are mentally incapacitated, then you cannot be guilty of the crime (hence NOT guilty, by reason of insanity). "Guilty, but insane" was a movement they had a few years ago -- not idea if any state actually adopted this.

Bottom line -- in theory our society has decided that they are not interested in labeling those who do not understand their actions as criminals, and throwing htem in jail. Rather, they can be declared insane and institutionalized, but in theory if they get better, they are released back into society. They are not "guilty of the crime", but rather, only "insane."

This rule also has some issues when applied to those who are very drunk or whacked out on drugs.

el borracho
10-21-2005, 01:16 PM
Bottom line -- in theory our society has decided that they are not interested in labeling those who do not understand their actions as criminals, and throwing htem in jail. Rather, they can be declared insane and institutionalized, but in theory if they get better, they are released back into society. They are not "guilty of the crime", but rather, only "insane."
The back into society part is the part I dislike the most. I just don't think there is a cure for crazy enough to kill. On top of that, there is no societal benefit to keeping crazies in institutions as opposed to jails (I am assuming that jails are a less expensive option). Seriously, if they are crazy enough to kill they probably don't mind jail or even know the difference.

Raiderhader
10-21-2005, 01:18 PM
Not in English/American law.

The fundamental pieces of commiting a crime under our law involves a mental component (mens rea) and an act (actus reus) (no guarantees that the latin parts are correct). You cannot have a crime without both.

The mental component is why you cannot put a kid under a certain age (usually under 7) in any kind of jail, no matter what they do. They're too young to understand the implications of their actions, or that they are illegal. Therefore, they cannot commit a crime, technically.

The physical component is why pure thoughts are not a crime. Even if you run around saying you're going to kill someone, you cannot be put in jail for that. As soon as you BEGIN to do SOMETHING, any little thing, towards commiting that crime, however, it can be a crime (attempted X, or conspiracy to commit X), and you can go to jail.

(one exception -- threatening the President's life might be a crime -- not sure how that one works).

Anyway -- part of this whole deal means that if you are mentally incapacitated, then you cannot be guilty of the crime (hence NOT guilty, by reason of insanity). "Guilty, but insane" was a movement they had a few years ago -- not idea if any state actually adopted this.

Bottom line -- in theory our society has decided that they are not interested in labeling those who do not understand their actions as criminals, and throwing htem in jail. Rather, they can be declared insane and institutionalized, but in theory if they get better, they are released back into society. They are not "guilty of the crime", but rather, only "insane."

This rule also has some issues when applied to those who are very drunk or whacked out on drugs.


I've never understood this line of thought. To me, most people who commit henious crimes are at least some what insane.

Amnorix
10-21-2005, 01:22 PM
The back into society part is the part I dislike the most. I just don't think there is a cure for crazy enough to kill. On top of that, there is no societal benefit to keeping crazies in institutions as opposed to jails (I am assuming that jails are a less expensive option). Seriously, if they are crazy enough to kill they probably don't mind jail or even know the difference.

I'll disagree with all this.

First, jails are nothing more than big waiting areas. You throw people who presumably are reasonably functional in there, and keep them there, trapped, until their time is up. Not much more than that.

Psychiatric facilities are designed to make people who have mental issues BETTER. They are much better equipped to handle people with severe mental problems than a jail.

Also, a psychiatric ward is probably much better able to prevent patients from hurting themselves or others. Both in terms of recognizing the signs, and in terms of the ability to do it (padded cells, etc.)

Amnorix
10-21-2005, 01:23 PM
I've never understood this line of thought. To me, most people who commit henious crimes are at least some what insane.

Not necessarily *medically* insane. "abnormal", sure. But not insane. But this issue is why there are doctors who battle it out when someone claims insanity.

Cochise
10-21-2005, 01:24 PM
The State of California could seek the death penalty.

How many people does Kalifornia execute per year? 1? I dont know how much good it would do.

I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more than 1 deserving person per year in the state.

luv
10-21-2005, 01:27 PM
I'll disagree with all this.

First, jails are nothing more than big waiting areas. You throw people who presumably are reasonably functional in there, and keep them there, trapped, until their time is up. Not much more than that.

Psychiatric facilities are designed to make people who have mental issues BETTER. They are much better equipped to handle people with severe mental problems than a jail.

Also, a psychiatric ward is probably much better able to prevent patients from hurting themselves or others. Both in terms of recognizing the signs, and in terms of the ability to do it (padded cells, etc.)
A mother killing her babies is the ultimate form of selfish. I highly doubt she was insane, but I'm not a psychiatrist or expert on the law like some.

mlyonsd
10-21-2005, 01:30 PM
All this being said I think anyone convicted of a heinous crime against a kid should be hung by a tree in the local square.

After all the appeals of course. (limit 3)

Inspector
10-21-2005, 01:33 PM
Not in English/American law.

The fundamental pieces of commiting a crime under our law involves a mental component (mens rea) and an act (actus reus) (no guarantees that the latin parts are correct). You cannot have a crime without both.

The mental component is why you cannot put a kid under a certain age (usually under 7) in any kind of jail, no matter what they do. They're too young to understand the implications of their actions, or that they are illegal. Therefore, they cannot commit a crime, technically.

The physical component is why pure thoughts are not a crime. Even if you run around saying you're going to kill someone, you cannot be put in jail for that. As soon as you BEGIN to do SOMETHING, any little thing, towards commiting that crime, however, it can be a crime (attempted X, or conspiracy to commit X), and you can go to jail.

(one exception -- threatening the President's life might be a crime -- not sure how that one works).

Anyway -- part of this whole deal means that if you are mentally incapacitated, then you cannot be guilty of the crime (hence NOT guilty, by reason of insanity). "Guilty, but insane" was a movement they had a few years ago -- not idea if any state actually adopted this.

Bottom line -- in theory our society has decided that they are not interested in labeling those who do not understand their actions as criminals, and throwing htem in jail. Rather, they can be declared insane and institutionalized, but in theory if they get better, they are released back into society. They are not "guilty of the crime", but rather, only "insane."

This rule also has some issues when applied to those who are very drunk or whacked out on drugs.


Just get stoned before knocking off that convenience store. It won't be your fault, you were whacked out on drugs.

This has always bothered me - nobody is responsible for their actions - it's always the fault of someone or something else.

el borracho
10-21-2005, 01:37 PM
I'll disagree with all this.

First, jails are nothing more than big waiting areas. You throw people who presumably are reasonably functional in there, and keep them there, trapped, until their time is up. Not much more than that.

Psychiatric facilities are designed to make people who have mental issues BETTER. They are much better equipped to handle people with severe mental problems than a jail.

Also, a psychiatric ward is probably much better able to prevent patients from hurting themselves or others. Both in terms of recognizing the signs, and in terms of the ability to do it (padded cells, etc.)
If guilty her time should never be up, IMO. She should die but since our society is so slow to get to that point then she should at least be permanently removed from society.

I don't think there is any getting better from killing small children. I don't believe anyone ever kills kids and then comes back to be a regular citizen.

I know it sounds cruel but I am not concerned with the comfort/ well-being of a murderer.

Saggysack
10-21-2005, 01:52 PM
How many people does Kalifornia execute per year? 1? I dont know how much good it would do.

I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more than 1 deserving person per year in the state.

Conservative Kansas hasn't even put down 1 yet since they reinstated it in 1994. Plenty of wacks here that deserve to be cut up, diced and boiled. Like Gavin Scott, Gary Kleypas, John Robinson, the Carr brothers.