DNA results revealed.

[Clipper]

I am aware of the slippery slope Swimmy, as are most of us who simply vent our frustrations with cases such as this. I uphold all the freedoms and rights afforded us by the constitution and bill of rights, but our guts sometimes betray us and make us wish we could AVENGE some especially disgusting and heinous crimes.
Personally I could cut this guys penis off and wear it on my belt or key ring like the rattles that you see people in the southwest carry in such a manner, when they have terminated the life of a dangerous reptile. This guy IS a dangerous reptile.

The disgust is enough that I could and would, if afforded the opportunity and permitted by law, beat this guy within and inch of his life, let him heal and do it again. this guy is a dingle berry dangling from the ass of society.

Sorry for the anger, but YES, Swimmy, I do uphold the constitution and respect it's freedoms and rights, even though I would violate those at will in cases like this, involving children.

[lilbump1980]

he wont last long in jail, the other inmates will kill him, I have heard that even the worst people (murderers) HATE child molesters

[bobbbiez]

I doubt he will be put in with the general population.

[dgriffin]

author=swimmy board=3 thread=1986 post=31525 time=1233606667] I actually wrote a decision for a judge where one attorney argued that the DSM-IV was not fact and that the judge could not take judicial notice. My research proved that attorney wrong.

Swimmy, I don't know what LEGAL point you were arguing, but actually the DSM's worth and heritage is fairly controversial among many professionals.

For a taste of that argument:
blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/obsessively-yours/200812/the-new-york-times-the-dsm-v

A New Yorker article I remember reading a few years back, good summary of the arguments.
www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/03/050103fa_fact?currentPage=1

More arguing as the DSM V goes together:
psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/17/dsm-v-transparency-or-secrecy/

I used the DSM IV in my previous work and in general found it very useful, but many parts have an artificial feel to me. On the other hand, I have a close relative who uses it professionally and feels perfectly comfortable with it.

[Swimmy]

Clipper, I was merely giving my own train of thought more than I was lecturing you or anyone else about having those thoughts. That's why I said I don't necessarily disagree with you. It is amazing how cynical and jaded (right word to use?) you become after working with the clients I deal with.

[Clipper]

I know. I have learned from Todd and others working in prisons and that they can grow to be calloused and intolerant when their lives are in jeopardy every day.

I didn't see you as lecturing swimmy. I was simply saying that right or wrong, understanding the premise and the importance of the constitution, I still have a hard time not wanting to see this bastard die.

I would never be able to handle your job, and work strictly with the law and keep my emotion out of it. A defense attorney has a very hard and crappy job, defending many that are obviously guilty before they go to court. They have the right to counsel, but it has to be a bitch to BE that counsel. Kudos in being able to do that job fairly and justly under the law.

[Swimmy]

Feb 2, 2009 23:00:50 GMT -5 Clipper said:

I was simply saying that right or wrong, understanding the premise and the importance of the constitution, I still have a hard time not wanting to see this bastard die.

I agree with you. And it is often difficult to reign yourself back to reason in these instances. I cannot tell you how many times of late I wished there was a real world batman figure. Someone not bound by the Constitution who could enforce the laws.

[dgriffin]

Feb 3, 2009 7:42:07 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

I agree with you. And it is often difficult to reign yourself back to reason in these instances. I cannot tell you how many times of late I wished there was a real world batman figure. Someone not bound by the Constitution who could enforce the laws.

Unfortunately, when some people wished for that in the past, they got Hitler and Mussolini.

This is 53 seconds, stay for the the end, the best part.

[Swimmy]

Feb 2, 2009 22:40:29 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Feb 2, 2009 15:31:07 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

I actually wrote a decision for a judge where one attorney argued that the DSM-IV was not fact and that the judge could not take judicial notice. My research proved that attorney wrong.

Swimmy, I don't know what LEGAL point you were arguing, but actually the DSM's worth and heritage is fairly controversial among many professionals.

For a taste of that argument:
blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/obsessively-yours/200812/the-new-york-times-the-dsm-v

A New Yorker article I remember reading a few years back, good summary of the arguments.
www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/01/03/050103fa_fact?currentPage=1

More arguing as the DSM V goes together:
psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/17/dsm-v-transparency-or-secrecy/

I used the DSM IV in my previous work and in general found it very useful, but many parts have an artificial feel to me. On the other hand, I have a close relative who uses it professionally and feels perfectly comfortable with it.

Sorry I missed this post, Dave. I remember reading some of those arguments. The issue was whether the judge could take judicial notice of the DSM. The argument against was exactly that. However, from a legal standpoint, the DSM is generally accepted as a reliable source of fact not requiring expert testimony explaining the DSM. In fact, most of the state law and regulations pertaining to mental hygiene relies on the DSM's definitions. So, until it is overtly overturned as accepted among the science community (which could have changed over the past three years), as far as NYS Office of Mental Hygiene is concerned, it's legit.

[Swimmy]

This court is required to take judicial notice of the common law, statutes, constitutions of the United States and every state, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (CPLR 4511 ). As set forth below, the decision to take judicial notice of the DSM IV is accordingly mandated by law.

Go to the description of this Headnote.Several terms defined in the Mental Hygiene Law depend on definitions found in the "most recent edition" of the DSM IV (Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [52], [53], [54]). For example, Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [52] defines persons with serious mental illness as individuals with a "designated diagnosis of mental illness under the most recent edition of the [DSM IV]." A designated mental illness diagnosis is further defined as a DSM IV diagnosis (14 NYCRR 512.4, 587.4 [5]). Therefore, by law, to determine if the patient has a mental disorder, the court must take judicial notice of and apply the DSM IV.

Matter of William A., 2006 NY Slip Op 26297, 5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

[frankcor]

Aww, come on Swimmy. Can't we kill him just a little bit?

[dgriffin]

Feb 3, 2009 19:17:28 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

This court is required to take judicial notice of the common law, statutes, constitutions of the United States and every state, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (CPLR 4511 ). As set forth below, the decision to take judicial notice of the DSM IV is accordingly mandated by law.

Go to the description of this Headnote.Several terms defined in the Mental Hygiene Law depend on definitions found in the "most recent edition" of the DSM IV (Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [52], [53], [54]). For example, Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [52] defines persons with serious mental illness as individuals with a "designated diagnosis of mental illness under the most recent edition of the [DSM IV]." A designated mental illness diagnosis is further defined as a DSM IV diagnosis (14 NYCRR 512.4, 587.4 [5]). Therefore, by law, to determine if the patient has a mental disorder, the court must take judicial notice of and apply the DSM IV.

Matter of William A., 2006 NY Slip Op 26297, 5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Thanks, Swimmy. That's interesting and I supposed it was more a legal point than clinical. And it makes sense.... the law has to settle on something. And the DSM is generally accepted in a general way, I'd guess.