You must log in or register to comment.

Karenomegas t1_jav02en wrote

"It may also have been for her to finish what she started, because basically she wanted to end her life when she killed them," the psychologist said.


Squez360 t1_jaximbr wrote

Maybe if assisted suicide was legal, then she could have ended her life before she ended the lives of her children


Hen-stepper t1_jaxuyql wrote

That's not a great argument considering she could have just killed herself before going on a murder fest.

There's no real causality either... sort of like saying if Big Macs had 3 patties instead of 2 patties some passengers would have gotten sick on 9-11, missed their flights, and lived. So therefore Big Macs should have 3 patties.


bigshot73 t1_jaxvdkl wrote

My god that sounds delicious


Squez360 t1_jayxpn0 wrote

You make it sound like suicide is an easy thing to do. It’s not. Killing yourself is mentally and physically hard. Look at all the failed suicide attempts. But it would be easier if you have someone helping you.


wompical t1_jb31pcx wrote

sounds like big macs need to have 3 patties to me.


The-Fumbler t1_jb0z2zn wrote

Assisted suicide is legal in Belgium for medical grounds.


deftoner42 t1_jawdibb wrote

So like the equivalent of 'suicide by cop' only on a state level. In this case, I feel like life in prison would be a more fitting punishment.


ekanite t1_jawetxs wrote

And what would punishment accomplish exactly? Do you expect someone this far gone to "learn their lesson" and atone in some way inside an expensive tax-funded prison cell? Or is this just a way for you to satisfy your craving for further human suffering, or is it just a justice boner?

Either way, comments like this serve no purpose. Let the bitch die and move on.


hiimsubclavian t1_jayggrv wrote

No such thing as too far gone. Bible tells you god is patient and does not wish anyone to perish. Buddhism tell you the only thing you have to do is to put down the butcher knife.

Even the vilest of murderers can find redemption if they're willing to change. No one is beyond saving.


ekanite t1_jazaz3s wrote

I would love to believe this too. And that we're all born equal and have good inside of us. But no, some humans are broken beyond repair. Just not meant for this world.


Big_D_Cyrus t1_jawxwp9 wrote

I expect punishment for murderers.


ekanite t1_jax5rld wrote

And this solves what exactly?

Remove the problem, save tax dollars, move on with life. If you want some sadistic revenge fulfilment do it on your own time.


Big_D_Cyrus t1_jax8eso wrote

Life in prison is the punishment. Not cruel not unusual. You give sympathy to the murderer but not the victims. That is sick and perverted


Coomb t1_jaxe1xz wrote

Hey dude, by definition murder victims can't suffer or take some kind of perverse glee in watching their killers suffer. The only people who benefit from watching killers suffer are people like you who like to watch people suffer as long as you think they deserve it.


Holmesee t1_jaxeflm wrote

I don’t want to pay for a punishment system I want to pay for a reform system. Otherwise what’s the point. A system based on revenge would be so problematic.


AnAutisticGuy t1_jax3rvf wrote

That’s not supposed to be the point of the justice system. Also. Just because you want something, that doesn’t mean you get it.


Big_D_Cyrus t1_jax89ak wrote

It is part of it. That's how victims and society heal


AnAutisticGuy t1_jaxcs7h wrote

No seriously it really isn’t a part of the justice system and it doesn’t help victims heal. Sometimes the perpetrator isn’t alive after the event and yet the victim heals anyway.


cdotterhamilton t1_jaymv2o wrote

People in Hell want ice water. Doesn’t mean they get it.

Despite belief, languishing in a jail cell does not bring a single person back. If they’re sick and want out, let them the fuck out.

It’s no skin off your teeth.


The-Fumbler t1_jb0z861 wrote

Prisons are full in Belgium, it’s an actual problem.


Highly-uneducated t1_jawk1yd wrote

you know if European countries really want to punish a shitty inmate, American privately owned prisons could take them for a fee, and the European inmate could expirience the alien life of race politics, where their lives are controlled by extremely violent gangs, and the guards are allowed to shoot them if they step in he wrong area, and are only concerned with keeping order and not anyone's safety. instead of getting euthanized, I'd like to see the look on this bitches face when she was told what a no hands policy is.


Chiggadup t1_jb7nleg wrote

You know Belgium is basically the European cocaine import capitol, right?

I imagine prison isn’t exactly fun there with the various drug cartels interned.

What version of europe is your sentiment operating off of?


Highly-uneducated t1_jb7pq5u wrote

Sweden and Denmark. I can't find statistic on Belgium's prison violence or gangs, is it comparable to the US?


Chiggadup t1_jb83hgt wrote

I have heard about Belgium and its ports being important for cocaine and other drugs.

I’ve heard MUCH more about the Netherlands and their recent cartel issues with the murders of journalists and lawyers, which are fascinating if you’re into that type of news.


Highly-uneducated t1_jb8b2fm wrote

I am, thanks. to the original point though, I would be shocked if any western European country had similar prison gang culture and violence to the US, and would be very curious to learn about it. it's interesting, because you have gangs in prison that pretty much only exist there. you could be in a biker gang, fighting another biker gang, but then in prison, you'll answer to the Arian brotherhood, while the rival gang answers to the skin heads. there will be an uneasy truce between those gangs, so you can't fight your rival, and then have to fight one cartel connected gang while you're allies with another. that's where the no hands policy comes in. if you decide you're mad at that rival biker gang, you're not allowed to fight because they don't want to risk a gang war that will give an advantage to the black gangs or the rival cartels, so they'll make you go into a cell with your rival where 2 knives will be waiting. do you know if this dynamic happens in Belgium or other European prisons?


MrmmphMrmmph t1_jb0qd7p wrote

This feels oddly like the death penalty in the way the state is involved in this. I immediately thought Gary Gilmore here in the U.S. who asked to go before the firing squad (convicted murderer who actually was put to death this way). Tricky situation, this.


linda-stanley t1_jauz5l4 wrote

I wish this was an option offered in the USA. Belgium must have a more compassionate society than our own.


Sellazar t1_jav67j5 wrote

I am originally from the Netherlands, where Euthanasia is an option. The stories I hear here in the UK make me so sad and angry.

The poor man who ended up completely paralysed, he is a shell of who he was and has to be conscious while his loved ones have to sacrifice their lives to care for him.

He just wants to die. There will be no cure or relief from his situation. He will just need to wait for it to happen or for one of his loved ones to risk jail to do it for him.

Meanwhile, a "pro life" advocate will be shouting that all lives are sacred and should be protected. So, says the perfectly healthy person, probably planning to go to the beach with their family later that day.

There is no empathy, just selfish shits.


ilikepizza2much t1_javqnts wrote

That same selfish shit is probably anti abortion, and pro death penalty


senorcoach t1_javuh2j wrote

>and pro death penalty

then they aren't pro-ife


Literature-South t1_javxv6p wrote

Welcome to America.


malphonso t1_jaw0z8b wrote

They argue that it's different because they're executing an adult that made bad choices and is facing the consequences. While taking a pill to induce miscarriage is killing a poor innocent baby.

They even extend this logic to pregnancies, resulting from rape. They can't be aborted because that would be "punishing an innocent child for the actions of someone else."


Literature-South t1_jaw9fk2 wrote

They also say “all life is sacred” when clearly they don’t mean it.


Temporary_Inner t1_jazij3w wrote

A legitimate argument against euthanasia is that it would be used as a replacement to further access to healthcare. In any country, you're never really going to see the rich use euthanasia unless they're very very old or at the very very end of palliative care because they have access to quality of life enhancing medications, physical therapy, and technology.

A country without universal access to healthcare, such as the United States, would see an inordinate amount of poor people choose euthanasia due to their inability to access healthcare. A real life "have you tried killing all the poor?"

The UN Human Rights experts have raised this concern with Canada, a government which approved of a 61 year old's medically assisted euthanasia when his only significant impairment was hearing loss...after he was checked in for being a suicide risk. European countries seem to have more stringent laws and better access to healthcare, but the solution to a lack of support for the impoverished can't be government sanctioned suicide. That has to be incredibly limited in scope.


ilikepizza2much t1_jazwe54 wrote

This is a very legitimate concern, but I imagine Canada actually has comparatively good health care. And one depressed deaf man is not enough of a reason to deny service to other desperate people


WW3_Historian t1_jav5fj3 wrote

In many US states it happens automatically. Especially if you kill five children.


[deleted] t1_javb0la wrote



alexeands t1_javi8uw wrote

Fun fact - it frequently costs the state less money to keep people in prison for life than it costs to kill them.


I_Smokes_Rocks t1_javp2pa wrote

Source on this?


Head_of_Lettuce t1_javr6ih wrote

It sounds counterintuitive but it’s true in many cases. The reason is that death penalty cases are much more expensive for all parties than other types of cases (i.e. life in prison), because the trials themselves are often more numerous (appeals, etc) and longer than they otherwise would be. Those costs often outweigh the costs of just convicting someone to life in prison, and paying to keep them confined for the rest of their life. Also, many people end up either having their convictions overturned or commuted to life in prison, making the whole thing a wasted expense.

Here is a paper from the government of Indiana which breaks down some of the costs involved. It doesn’t explicitly state that death penalty cases are more expensive I don’t think, but it should give you an idea.


malphonso t1_jaw1fl2 wrote

In addition to the court costs, there's the addition housing costs associated with death row. A normal housing unit may have 50 or 60 inmates in a dorm to two guards. A death row unit will have 10-1 man cells to 1 guard. Even if there's only one death row inmate. Getting close to execution it will be one guard watching that one inmate separate from other housing units.


nsci2ece t1_jawoqko wrote

It's because of something called appeals. The US is not China where once a death sentence is handed out, it actually happens within the same month. Do you want the US to be as liberal with the death penalty application as China? Because that's the only way the death penalty becomes cheaper.


beyondbliss t1_jb1uwt9 wrote

It’s a well known fact, or should be a well known fact. Due to the cost and errors made, a lot of people are starting to not agree with the death penalty.


Katana1369 t1_jav77of wrote

Actually Andrea Yates got life without parole in Texas of all places. They usually kill at the drop of a hat.


SkunkMonkey t1_javuca0 wrote

She was white and female.


thejoeface t1_jaw5xlv wrote

She was suffering from severe post pardum psychosis and her husband was continuing to pump babies into her despite their doctor telling him to stop


Katana1369 t1_jawevh8 wrote

Don't forget the doctor also wouldn't prescribe meds. If I remember right because the husband said not to. Both of them should have gone to jail too.


GiraffePolka t1_jaw2gnh wrote

It was also very clear that her husband was forcing her to have more children despite being told over and over again she wasn't mentally well enough to handle it


Katana1369 t1_jaweoor wrote

And suffered from a legitimate medical condition but yes in Texas white folks don't get death as much as people of color. That actually goes for all crimes every where.


BeleagueredWDW t1_jaw2xvu wrote

I was born in Belgium as both of my parents were in the military. It was off base, and I so wish I could get dual citizenship. My birth certificate is even in French. I know this is a random comment, but your post made just think about it.


Illustrious_Crab1060 t1_jbc4qs7 wrote

But you do have to make sure especially in the US people aren't pushed to that option because money


kanzler_brandt t1_javctqw wrote

It sounds morbid, but there is an excellent fictionalised film about this that, I suppose, attempts to speculate about the factors that might have driven the mother to this; there was basically a third and very controlling person in the marriage to whom the father seemed to be closer than to his actual wife. The film is called Our Children (2012).


dzastrus t1_jaw1tig wrote

The impulse to kill your children is ancient. When a mother or father sees their family unit breaking up or becomes socially ostracized they will see their fate as sealed. A mother would not be able to provide for children by herself. The children's future will be bleak if not ending after starvation or predation. Leaving them to the leopards is worse than killing them yourself. Humans have been dealing with this prospect a lot longer than we have had the desire or means to help those kids. Most people choosing to kill their children are also in abusive relationships. I don't know the particulars of this woman's case. I would think they have considered all of this. Still, it's a fascinating, rare throwback to a fundamental behavior.


tsvangison t1_jax66dg wrote

There is a story that haunts me to this day. I watched an interview of old Indian men who went through the separation of India and Pakistan. This old man narrates how the muslims were going through Hindu villages raping women and killing anything and anyone in their paths. His entire family hid in bunker of sorts. There were about 8 females with him. The muslims discovered the bunker and were inevitably going to make their way through and kill them. So the men decided to line up their daughters and nieces, and one by one, chopped their heads off. In their mind this was a better way for them to die than to be raped and defiled by the muslims. This man was literally shaking as he spoke about this and he says he vividly remembers the sound of the sword as they did this. Fucking hell, people go through hell on this very earth.


kanzler_brandt t1_jaw3pam wrote

The impulse to protect one’s children is, however, just as ancient - and more widespread. And it is precisely because it is so natural and widespread that more professional attention should be given to ‘unnatural feelings’ among parents, whether by OBGYNs or therapists or friends, whether feelings of apathy or something more violent. Even something as common as absent feelings of bonding accompanying postpartum depression is given scant attention, while the same issue in fathers is normalised; the result, in both cases, is that the problems are left untreated, and don’t always go away by themselves.

I know absolutely nothing about parenting or children but the knowledge that this is the social, taboo-fraught environment in which I would have to seek psychological assistance if needed makes me loath to start a family in the first place.

Edit: to clarify, I find the mother’s actions abhorrent and don’t mean to sympathise with a family annihilator, but I don’t think that adds much insight to the discussion


dzastrus t1_jaw495a wrote

Great points. I should have added that my scenario is super rare. Still, it happens and when it does it gets a lot of headlines. Aberrations like this are very hard for most people to get their heads around and because of that there's not a lot of empathy for the perpetrator. edit: changed a word


ParaBrutus t1_jb1nykh wrote

Meh I wouldn’t put too much stock in an evolutionary impulse to kill our children with compassion. A lot of species kill and eat their young during food scarcity because the parents have a better chance of procreating in the future than the offspring, and sometimes animals will kill offspring so the mother has capacity to find a new mate and bear its offspring instead. There are a bunch of reasons why primates kill offspring but none of them are altruistic from the offspring’s perspective:

I do think people find these particular child murders fascinating because women are generally much less violent than men. When men kill their children it’s just assumed it’s for revenge or some other selfish motive, whereas when women do it society likes to speculate that they are also victims in some sense.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jaw88yh wrote

Before I read the article I thought that euthanasia sounded like a very soft way to refer to the death penalty.

I think that more places should offer euthanasia as an option, with multiple doctors opinions separate from family influence of course.

So many people suffer for so long without the ability to make a walk end of life decision. The only thing we let them do right now is not take food or water and that takes forever. They end up asking for water and all they will do is dab a sponge on their mouth so it's not so cracked and dry but once you ask to stop being given food and water no matter how much you beg they won't go back on it.

So then nurses have to watch these elderly and/or very sick people die slowly from dehydration and starvation, being begged for sitting to drink and having to deny it.

I think euthanasia is a lot less cruel.


Zendofrog t1_jawl8ns wrote

Fucking where does this happen?


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jawqo7z wrote

Do you mean not allowing people to have food and water?

You'll see that it says you can start drinking and eating again wherever you want, however if you have signed that you do not want that to happen it will not override what you signed when you were "of sound mind"


explodingkitchen t1_jaxj2az wrote

>however if you have signed that you do not want that to happen it will not override what you signed when you were "of sound mind"

That statement is not supported by the material you linked.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jayptid wrote

It is, it just isn't expressly mentioned. It's like a do not resuscitate.

You can't sign a do not resuscitate and then in the heat of the moment yell "save me!" And them decide to save you against the orders of the DNR. Because when you recover (if you do) or if you are left incapacitated but "alive" you or your family can sue.

What you are reading is saying that you don't have to go into it 100%. You can tell them you want to cease food and water, but if you ask to start back then they can't deny it. That's abuse. If you tell them that you want to cease food and water and you do not want it to be restarted then they cannot start it back.

The idea behind this process is that those who request it are already so far gone that their bodies won't really want it enough for it to be painful, but not everyone is in that position.


explodingkitchen t1_jaywf2w wrote

That's a crap analogy since someone who needs resuscitation isn't capable of saying "save me!". It's not possible for there to be any conflict between previously stated intention and present demand.

While there may be individuals who would want a "don't give me food/water, even if I beg for it" clause, you don't have to agree to such a thing to do VSED. And regardless of what you've signed, palliative care should be there to deal with any pain/anxiety/whatever the patient is experiencing during the dying process.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jayxas1 wrote

  1. people can be conscious during an active heart attack and if they have a DNR you can't take life saving measures

  2. someone can state they "don't want to die" before becoming unconscious in a situation where they are unconscious

Those are some examples of times when someone may be conscious but have a DNR.

Not every state allows for the same level of palliative care.

I also did not say that you had to agree to such things to do a vsed, I however did say that in places without euthanasia that this is the only option. And no matter what you have to admit it's much more cruel not only to the patient but to the care giver


Zendofrog t1_jawtnrh wrote

Physically where?


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_jawumij wrote

I'm in the US and that can be done anywhere here. I'm sure you can do it in Canada as it's just an advance directive. Probably anywhere that an advance directive is valid


Cultural_Magician105 t1_jax7jfr wrote

I wonder if Andrea Yates would do this if allowed. With her mental illness and now she's medicated she has to realize the enormity of the crime. I don't know how you would get up everyday and go on with your life.


Asleep_Operation4116 t1_jay5jju wrote

I hope her HUSBAND realizes the enormity of his crime against her and their kids!


EruditeIdiot t1_jayi2dx wrote

I always felt a little bad for her, honestly.

Fucking quiverfills. It’s a cult.


MississippiJoel t1_jb2yfn4 wrote

He is total scum. Her therapist told her not to have any more children. He convinced her otherwise, saying God would protect their children, and they needed to have more children. Then she killed all her children. Then he divorces her in prison.


Asleep_Operation4116 t1_jb3cy2n wrote

And he had her HOMESCHOOL them as well so she never even got a break! He should rot!


incognito_ginger t1_jbk8q51 wrote

While I agree completely the problem is religion more than the man if it was the justification for doing something horrible. He is a stupid person who may have even felt obligated to do what he did. I can't blame him without also blaming his upbringing and religion. We have a mental health crisis and religion is gas on that fire. Unfortunately it's not easy to solve that problem.


Guilty-Web7334 t1_jaylp4f wrote

Apparently, once they get her lucid and back in touch with reality, what she’s done hits her and she breaks again. There’s no point for her. Death would be merciful.


OHMG69420 t1_jauz43r wrote

I wonder how the Dad is doing…


JoeFelice t1_jaw9tka wrote

There was occasional press about him. His name is Bouchaib Moqadem, Belgian of Moroccan descent. He remarried in 2010 and had a daughter. He got scammed into investing in a travel agency and lost 30K Euros. No news after that.


hedgetank t1_jawhlnk wrote

Guess they really don't waffle on stuff like this over there.


gnomewife t1_jay8oea wrote

There's a lot of understandable controversy over euthanasia for mental illness. I wonder why she went this route instead of just killing herself?


palcatraz t1_jayd0a8 wrote

She was in a mental health facility. She couldn't commit suicide.

Unless you mean at the time of the murders, in which case, she tried to commit suicide as well, but failed.


gnomewife t1_jayxdq2 wrote

I meant now, but the facility would have had barriers to implementation, because typically providers don't support suicide.


Tethros t1_javy74n wrote

I don't think this request should have been granted. Being locked up and having to live with herself was part of the punishment, why give her a get out of jail free card?


TangoZulu t1_jaw97ye wrote

Her suffering won’t bring the kids back. Maybe ask yourself why you take immense joy in another human’s suffering?


Tethros t1_jawgyu4 wrote

I'm not sure what gives you the idea that I would take joy in another's suffering. Surely one can question the ethical implications of a legal decision without being accused of sadism. Or do you live in a world that is so black and white?


TangoZulu t1_jawj03f wrote

You just said you disagreed with the decision because killing her is somehow a "get out of jail free card". You are literally saying you want her to suffer, that freaking DEATH isn't enough. That's sadism, and about as black-and-white thinking as you can get.


Tekki t1_jaw3mvy wrote

Prison based punishments have proven to be a terrible deterrent over time. No party would benefit and funds would be spent keeping her housed and alive.

A better solution is either rehabilitation efforts or as they see it, allowing her to die.


TurnsOutImAScientist t1_jb0jn2j wrote

> Prison based punishments have proven to be a terrible deterrent over time.

I've sort of given up hope of people ever coming around to this in the US. People in the US like revenge too much. Not sure anyone past college age is really capable of evolving on this once they've dug their feet in.

Comparing the justice systems in the US and Europe will make your head spin, and once you realize just how unnecessarily cruel our approach is in the US, it's even more tragic to see widespread brainwashing into defending that system.


DeanXeL t1_jawfaee wrote

She was already out of prison. Besides that, it's not a "get out of jail free card", it's not just an "ask and you shall receive", there's an entire, very long and intense procedure with several different doctors that need to sign off on it. It was deemed that she was suffering from unbearable mental distress, with no chance of recovery.


[deleted] t1_jav2fss wrote