“Officers were able to determine that Allexis had smashed the cat’s head with her foot and then began to eat the cat. I did observe blood on Allexis' feet, hands, and fur on her lips,” said an officer’s report.
Once again, the mentally ill remanded to the prison complex.
The defendant had previously pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but a competency report from Akron’s Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic said she was capable of understanding the court proceedings.
The Canton Repository reported that the mother-of-three’s psychological report said she was “irritable, aggressive, deceitful, lacks remorse, shows a reckless disregard for the safety of others and fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.”
Fucked up
The defendant had previously pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but a competency report from Akron’s Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic said she was capable of understanding the court proceedings.
IANAL, but not guilty by reason by insanity and competent to stand trial are completely different things. You can be competent and not guilty by reason of insanity. Insanity defense means you were out of your mind at time of the crime, not at time of trial or permanently.
In legal proceedings, being fit to stand trial is the opposite of insanity. Pleading not guilty for insanity suggests a chronic mental health issue that leaves the person incapable of understanding or making sound judgements.
We have a similar system in place in the medical field. If a person is unable to demonstrate basic self awareness in the moment, they cannot consent to medical care. For us, this means implied consent takes effect and we are allowed to act in what would be considered a reasonable manner to save the patients life. There are systems in place for people who are chronically not oriented; be it medical power of attorney, advanced directives, DNRs, etc
From what I understand, this is (in spirit at least) what's happening in a legal setting as well. If a person isn't capable of understanding the legal proceedings, then they need to be treated for their illness before the case can continue. I could be misremembering but a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity isn't a get out of jail free card, it's a "go to a state run mental institution until you're able to stand trial" card. You're still being locked up, often times into an environment that is significantly worse than the prison you would've gone to instead. Possibly for longer than the sentence they would've (and still may) served in prison. It's an awful system with massive flaws that punishes some of the most disadvantaged people in society for being neglected by the state to a point where they're a danger to themselves and those around them.
Insanity defense means you were insane at the time of the crime. Fit to stand trial means your ability to comprehend the trial as the trial happens. They are separate things in a temporal sense.
Pleading not guilty for insanity suggests a chronic mental health issue that leaves the person incapable of understanding or making sound judgements.
It can be an acute condition as well, only affecting the defendant at the time of the crime.
From Wikipedia:
The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendantis not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act.
Ohio Supreme Court also has something:
How Is Competency Different From a Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity Plea?
Competency to stand trial is a determination by the judge about a defendant’s present mental condition and about the defendant’s capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in the defendant’s own defense. A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) asserts an affirmative defense regarding the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense and focuses on the defendant’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of the defendant’s actions at that time.
You're talking about "temporary insanity"
No, “not guilty by reason of insanity” is the insanity defense. There is no distinct temporary insanity.
A person is “not guilty by reason of insanity” relative to a charge of an offense only if the person proves, by a preponderance of the evidence and in the manner specified in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code, that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person’s acts.
Okay, I see what you were saying now. Obviously, someone can be insane before, during and after the crime as well. I thought you were excluding chronic insanity with the last sentence
Well, where else do you expect the ~~slave labor~~ private prison industry to acquire ~~slaves~~ inmates? Immigrants? Immigrant children? American citizens who look like immigr--wait, nevermind, I answered my own question.
Why is the fact that she’s a us citizen in the last paragraph?
EDIT: I phrased this poorly, I meant, why hold that information back until the last paragraph? That's sort of the key part of the story.
Allexis T. Ferrell’s arrest received worldwide attention after it was falsely used as proof of claims by Donald Trump and running mate JD Vance that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were eating their pets.
Because it was being said that Haitian immigrants were the ones eating cats.
And this right here is a prime example of what Fox News and Republican sycophants do time and time again because the truth simply won’t work for their agendas. Let’s take a true story that has some legs and twist it the fuck up to really get it moving, but with their exciting new twist on it.
This right here is what that moron, you republicans voted for, was talking about in his last debate. He rolled with this bullshit, on national television, in full view of the world, and said Haitian immigrants were eating cats because of this story gone game-of-telephone.
Nice, reeeaaal nice…
Yeah, I phrased that poorly, I was painfully aware of the Haitians eating cats BS, I meant this more like "why wait until the last paragraph to drop that key bit of information?" Clumsy writing / story structure at the very least.
No worries, you’re right. It reads funny at the last sentence just capping the article with that right there. I think they were trying to bring it back to the viral nature of her video
The video of Ferrell’s arrest was circulated online shortly afterward
I think this was the main topic they really wanted to highlight.
but the Canton incident happened approximately 170 miles from Springfield and Ferrell is a U.S. citizen.
And the abrupt debunking to wrap it up.
Buried lead:
…the Canton incident happened approximately 170 miles from Springfield and Ferrell is a U.S. citizen.
Not really buried when it's in the summary of the post.
I mean it's pretty much in the title. The summary isn't part of the original article, readers of the article elsewhere had to dig for it if they misinterpreted the title.
True. Didn't think about it that way
Not important, but it's lede — a common mistake!
I appreciate the correction!
Came to bag on Trump Vance, stayed to say separate issue this person needs help not prison ffs.
In an ideal world, prison is a place where people go to get help. It is the "department of corrections" not the "department of punishment"
In America, it's fairly common to still find people feeling it is hilarious and/or just that men get raped in prison. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard that from people - that going to prison SHOULD involve men getting raped, because then they'll learn. This kind of discussion even for things like possessing a joint. What someone is supposed to "learn" from rape is unclear, but this country is full of some very backward notions still.
No wonder misogyny is such a problem if some Americans think it high comedy and male "criminals" are getting their just desserts by getting raped as a method of "correction".
I've often heard this from women, too. One was a former GF (we didn't last long). I did finally ask my GF if she thought women should get raped as part of this system, too, including for nonviolent crimes. I've asked other women that were gleeful about the prospect of some "criminal" (in some cases, someone they personally knew) getting raped if they think it should work for female "criminals", too. They recoiled at the question - even being asked bothered them. Those that did answer all said no, but that any men that get raped is because they deserve it, and need to "know what it is like".
People can be weird sometimes.
We need to educate people. You shouldn't leave elementary school without an understanding that Prisons exist to help people, and that a sentence is defined as "the amount of time that the State estimates that's how long you need to see a professional until you're ready to reacclimate to society without being a danger to yourself or others."
Also, that's a good first date question. "So, umm, what is your opinion on the gender disparity of rape in US prisoners?"
If U.S. prisons existed to help people then we wouldn't have the death penalty/capital punishment.
Department of miserable warehousing until you make it out and are held at arm’s length by society for being an ex-con for the rest of your life.
Now do factory farmers
More like "We're earing the cats!"
Um, this sounds totally bonkers, but the carnist bias built into the everyday sure is weird, isn't it?
That cat had a horrific death, yet somehow still better than most pigs in the US. That judge should imprison all slaughterhouse owners.
It really is a weird sort of cognitive dissonance that killing and eating a cat lands you in jail but killing and eating a pig nobody would even blink twice
Like, yeah, the person probably is not okay in some way, but what justification is there for jail?? And not just like, therapy at best? Why is a cat's life valued so much more than a pigs or cows life? Is it just because they are culturally considered cute? That's a fucked up thing to set legal precedent upon
If we consider animal abuse to be bad, then we'd better be consistent
“I can’t express the disappointment, shock, disgust that this crime has brought to me. I don’t know what could prompt anyone to want to eat a cat,” said the judge.
“You’ve embarrassed this county. You’ve embarrassed this nation. More importantly, you’ve embarrassed yourself,” added Forchione. “To me, you present quite a danger to our community. This is repulsive to me, I mean, that anyone would do this to an animal. And an animal’s like a child. I don’t know if you understand that or not.”
I mean, reading this spoken by people who, I would assume, eat meat is wild to me. And as far as I can tell, this was not someone's pet
I so agree. Unchallenged assumptions built into the carnist worldview lead people into some very weird positions.
I remember some crazy carnist growling at some other veg*n at the table at a restaurant: "I don't know WHAT you people are going to do in the Armageddon".
This was their response to a vegn asking some rather basic questions about the menu. So many questions: for one thing, they seem to think that an Armageddon is coming. For another, they seem to think that they'd be doing what, "living off the land"? Don't make me fucking laugh. And another, they seem to think that being vegn is some kind of suicide pact? Lastly, this is their excuse for being a carnist? That there is supposedly an Armageddon that will require eating meat, so they must consume it now?
The carnist response to even the existence of veg*ns really seems to flummox some of them to the point of complete incoherence on their part. Some of the conversations I've been subjected to from some of them are just eye-boggling weird. I don't bother trying to reason with carnists; trying to reason them out of a position they didn't reason themselves into is not my thing, but they want to "debate" me the minute they learn I'm vegetarian, usually starting with the groaner "but where do you get your protein?", LOL.
Why would you eat a cat that's not what you do with cats, you simply don't
I only eat things that have friends and enjoys music.
Why wouldn't you eat a cat? It's less social than a cow or a pig.
Personally, I'm too lazy to hunt, so I just get my meat from Elwood's (https://www.elwooddogmeat.com/). Hoping they add cat to their lineup one day.
Eating carnavores is a pretty bad idea, they accumulate parasites, they taste terrible (too lean, too tough, and a lot of the nastiness of the meat they eat acumulates in their meat) and it makes no sense to farm them for meat as whatever you feed them probably tastes better and provides more meat for less effort.
Dogs are omnivores (and can be raised vegetarian), a much better choice.
Cat doesn't taste much different from rabbit though
And here I thought orange just pulled this out of his ass to malign immigrants.
He did. The fact that someone (who isn't an immigrant) did it in a different place than they said does not make them correct.
The original story was a woman who lost her cat (later found in their basement IIRC) and blamed migrants for it baselessly. It has been totally refuted. You can't just shift a story to a totally different thing and claim it was correct later.
He did. One mentally ill US citizen, not in Springfield, not an immigrant, ate a cat. Trump and Vance then lied and said immigrants were doing it in Springfield, implying it was a regular occurrence. They were lying, deliberately and maliciously.
USA is where people are violently put in desperate situations, then caged for acting out of desperation. One "party" uses racism to blame the whole situation on the most vulnerable minorities. The other "party" cheers on the judge and celebrates the "humor" of it all.
Not to mention the extreme carnist hypocrisy described in other comments... USA is a real gross place to live.
Not to mention the extreme carnist hypocrisy
But you did mention it, didn't you? And it's both smug and off-topic to do so.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News