September 24, 2005
"An overly compliant personality."
The psychologist explains Lynndie England. Does that description make her seem any less responsible for her actions? I'd say being "overly compliant" is one of the character flaws, like having a hot temper, that might lead a person to commit a crime. Slapping "personality" onto it doesn't impress me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
If a person is compliant because of very low intelligence, that's different. You can't demand that the person take more responsibility than they can. It's like the difference between a physically paralyzed person and a very lazy person on the occasion of a requirement to run.
I still think it is an utter farce that Graner, who was the obvious ringleader, is likely to end up with less prison time than Lynndie.
I wonder is she is retarded; I have little doubt that she's got a very low intelligence level. She deserves punishment for her crimes, but Graner is the ringleader and he's still controlling her fate. I don't understand the military's legal system, but what I gather from reports is that when she tried to plead guilty, he testified that she wasn't. The military system doesn't allow one to plead guilty just to escape a trial, so now she's having to have a trial. Graner is a sadist, and a control freak, and he's playing this system for his own pleasure. If he gets less time than England, that will be an injustice.
Does being "overly compliant" lead to crime, or make it that much easier to be led to crime my fine rethuglican meme-repeater?
Uh, quxxo, you're defending Lynndie England! Better get your troll act together!
Lindsey: Judging from this description, I think all sorts of mental deficiencies short of retardation are disqualifiers, including the sort of pathology the psychologist was testifying about.
Yes, I am defending Lynndie England, not from her actions, but from being scapegoated.
And my fine Rethuglican torture defender, how will you swift-boat Capt. Ian Patrick, who has revealed that the 82nd Airborne has been involved in abuse and torture at the same time as Abu Graib, and all in the name of fun and boredom?
Yes, my fine Rethuglican-destroyer-of-America-in-the-name-of-politics-is-aok, I will defend England from scapegoating and continue to call for Dumsfeld, and Chimp to resign over destroying our military.
Oh, I'm all troll? You would have been one of Rotten George's minions calling the authors of the Federalist Papers Trolls. My fine rethuglican defamer liberty, you should be defending trolls, not narcing on them.
Ann, are you my long lost twin? I haven't read anything you have written that I didn't 100% agree with.
Condoleesa: Thanks for joining the comments!
Ann, don't put up with people like that. (Well, it's your blog; you can do what you want.) If someone cannot formulate a disagreement without including a personal insult, then the odds are very good that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Robert: Some things left up hurt the commenter more than deleting them, though the commenter may not notice.
Ann, that is exactly why I like it when conservative rethuglican law professors create blahgs and I do congratulate you for having bigger b___s than conservative rethuglican law professor Reynolds, and being brave enough to have comments enabled. Most conservative blahgers are way too chicken(hawks).
I generally have suspicions about experts involved in court proceedings as I find many have an axe to grind and are chosen by defense or prosecution for the reliability of their findings.
I don't think Dr. Xavier Amador is any different. His bailiwick is that part of schizophrenia is that crazy people refuse to believe they are crazy, or to use the term suffer from Anosognosia.
He was an expert witness at the Unabomber trial and the 20th Highjacker hearings, in both cases brought in to explain why they would, despite their intelligence, refuse legal counsel, his explanation, both were paranoid schizophrenics, and their illness prevents them from realizing that they are crazy.
So now we have Lynndie England, and guess what, Dr. Amador finds that she is disordered, so shouldn't be held accountable for her actions.
If you are paid to find someone crazy, then how hard is it to find that someone is crazy, especially when part of your pet theory is that protestations of sanity are used as proof of insanity?
I'm with Daryl. Amen to that. American law is totally incoherent with regard to why and who we punish. You don't like Lindy? Lucky you, because surely she's going down. And probably it's prudent public policy that "people such as her" go down. But who knows what she or anyone "deserves?"
Post a Comment