about the idea that her husband -- who knew she was suffering from PPD and psychosis -- might be held partially responsible for what she did, in terms of failing to protect his children.
Unless there is evidence that there was some sort of malicious intent on the part of the husband, how the hell would he know that his wife was about to massacre her own children ? Further, how can he be held liable for the actions of someone who has gone nuts ?
I fail to see the benefit for the "system" (and those who drive it), in its zeal to "have someone pay". Prosecute the husband on the basis of "should have known" alone... ?
Wnat is this ? are we supposed to be mind readers ?
In that vein... hell, the psychiatrist (if she had one), "should have known". Better yet, her priest/pastor/shaman, "should have known".
Now, if they held her senator responsible, I won't complain. (g)
Ridiculous. |
