Which is exactly why America is in the sad condition it is. Kids kill with no retribution, adults kill with little retribution, there's no reason not to kill when nothing happens to you.
Steal something, nothing happens, what reason would you have to stop? Throw acid onto vehicles causing thousands of dollars in damage and what happens to you? NOTHING.

If Mrs. Lippiatt was indeed taking psychotropic medication prior to the crime, I'd agree with your points, Scuba, and support investigation into a possible relationship.

Bad analogy. Women don't have prostates, but both men and women have brains.



Sure, men and women are different, but only when it's convenient to note the difference. The issue isn't whether I would be sympathetic to such a man, but whether the law would be, and I think we can agree that it wouldn't. The root of the problem is that when a woman sends her children into a lake strapped into a baby seat in a car, or drowns her 5 kids in a bathtub, or sticks a baby in a microwave oven, there's always an acronym for it and she's considered the victim and deserves all our sympathy when she hits the talk show circuit. When a man does it, he's a ruthless monster who deserves a slow, painful death.

There are plenty of other double standards when it comes to accountability. Take for instance alcohol and sex. If the woman is drunk and she later regrets the act, it's considered rape. If the man is drunk as well, he doesn't get a free pass. The law won't hold a woman accountable for giving the green light while she's intoxicated, but it will hold the man accountable for acting on the green light, despite the fact that he's drunk as well. Hell, if he regrets the act, do you suppose he can claim she took advantage of him and charge the woman with rape? Yes, it sounds ridiculous when you turn the tables.

There was no acronym in the Susan Smith case. She's in jail for as long as the law allows.

OK good, but the Andrea Yates thing...