You see these stories all the time. Yes, some parents are idiots but at times it is a close relative like an Uncle or Aunt. Who ARE these people, and why do the parents trust them?

Over 20 years ago a young man stabbed a child over 30 times because this inocent ( I think 2 year old) child was possesed. He turned himself in. Sadly time has not changed things.

"Miller told WPBF that deputies have gone to the home for domestic disturbances in the past. According to a police report, Sawyer was arrested in April 2006 while having a dispute with his mother, Judy. Police said that Judy told investigators at the time that her son had mental problems and had not been taking his medications, according to the report."

So, you leave a 1 year old with him? Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

I wonder what would happen if the family decided to sue the Catholic church for telling people that possession is possible?

The idea is ludicrous that a "demon" or some sort of "evil spirit" is taking possession of a body. It was understandable that people used to think that way before modern medicine, but today?

Yes the church still states that such things are possible.

I am not saying the church is responsible, nor that they should be charged, nor that the man is not 100% culpable for the crime.

I am merely wondering what would happen if the family tried suing.

Imagine it was your brother, wouldn't you want to trust him with the child and overlook his troubles, just wanting him to feel halfway normal?

How terribly terribly sad. The man was off his medications. These people who are mentally ill will often go off their meds secretly and not tell anyone what is going on in their heads.
Horribly sad....
I would like to think I would never trust someone seriously mentally ill, medicated or not, alone with my baby.
There was an elderly man in our (Catholic) church who just decided his wife had to die. He stabbed her at least 20 times, called 911, and was still stabbing her when the police got there.
His wife never mentioned there was a problem, but apparently he had some mental illness that went untreated for quite a while.
I am guessing they were afraid of what people would think if they got help.......

You would hope that you could trust your sibling with your child. And I am guessing a lot of people can. But for as many that can trust their sibling, there are those who can't. maybe she didn't want to leave the boy with her brother. maybe she didn't have a choice. Whatever the case, it is truly a sad one. I know the man is sick, but he knows what he did. He admitted that he thought about it.

I'm wondering what mental illness he had. I'm sure he's had issues most of his life, and by 38, his sister was probably the only person left to keep him off the streets.

I wouldn't go so far as to blame Reagan for this, but you can't just slash funding for the mentally ill, release them on the streets, and not expect something like this to happen.

Actually, I can say this with 100% authority, no.

You wouldn't go so far as to blame Reagan, but that is exactly what you did in a round-about way.

This is the kind of thinking that puts the blame for his actions on the government and its failure to act as nanny and mommy and take care of everyone.

The blame is 100% on the murderer. He quit taking his medication. Millions of people are faced with similar mental illnesses, some worse some less severe. Very few commit such crimes with or without the federal government holding their hand.

Okay, the guy had a mental disorder. Maybe it was one he was born with, maybe it was one from drugs. Who knows.

Why is it the federal government's responsibility to give a hand out to those inflicted with this problem? If any government should be throwing out money at these sort of problems, it is the state or local goverments, not the federal.

Or so I would assume. I don't really know anything about funding for this sort of problem. Does this come under the federal purvue? (sp?)

Typically, you can look at your brother or sister and face the truth about the danger they are.

Now, I can see a parent refusing to see that their child is a danger. That is much more common.

Maybe he quit taking his medication because, well, huh, he was mentally ill??? I'm tired of people treating mental illnesses like they aren't illnesses. If someone has a physical illness, which causes something to happen that results in the death of another person, are they held responsible? If a mother has an epileptic seizure, and her daughter falls in the pool and drowns while the mother is unconcious, do we execute the mother?

Somebody should. And yes, him being a drug addict and that causing him to become insane is convenient, but rarely happens. They become addicts, and yes, I believe we should help the addicts also. It's a completely different issue. Manyu things can cause mental issues. Not just birth and illegal drugs.

Most of the money does come from state and local government, not federal. That didn't stop Reagan from slashing 75% of the federal money, which resulted in 1000s of mentally ill being kicked out of facilities in the 80s, and thus being left out in the local streets. Regardless of who's paying, it's not good for any community to have the mentally ill homeless and wandering the streets.

Finally, if the federal government is going to continue the welfare for corporations, including the banks they helped out recently (yea for the Dow Jones breaking yet another record!), farmers, and everyone else through the continued bulls**t of pork riders on bills, then yes, I think they should spend a little on the less fortunate, the people that are temporarily down and out, and the mentally ill.

Well if the mother has a epiletic seizure because she quits taking her medication, than yes, she could be held liable for the death.

Usually, mentally ill people quit taking medication not because they are insane and the dog next door told them to quit taking it, but because they don't like the way the medication makes them feel, the way it saps them of energy. That is a choice, just like someone who is drunk who chooses to drive. They may be too drunk to make a rational decision, but they are responsible for their actions.

I will agree that there are too many pork projects added to federal bills. Actually, even one such item is too many. In a perfect world such things would be illegal. That just won't happen.

I don't see that the federal government is responsible for providing care of these people.

As I said, if the government is involved at all, it should be on the state level. The fact that the federal government wastes our money and basically steals it for lawmaker's pet projects does not mean that the federal government should provide treatment for the mentally ill.

Perhaps the federal government could help pay for research into treatment of the mentally ill (especially if the government gets a piece of the action when the treatment/medication starts making money, thereby getting a return on their investment)

It isn't good for the community, you are correct. I am just saying let the community pay the cost if the people can not pay for it.

My wife has a crazy brother. I'd like him to feel normal, but I'm aware that he is crazy. Because of this, I don't leave him alone in our house, and I sure as hell wouldn't trust him with our children.

Not for the calibre fo the film, but for the relevance here I'll bring up The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Based on the case of Annaliese Michel, a German girl who suffered from epilepsy and depression.

Abandoning the diagnosis from a psychiatric clinic, her family turned to the church who decided she was possessed and proceeded to kill her via the rite of Exorcism.

Two members of the clergy and Annaliese's parents were found guilty of negligent homicide.

This all happened in the mid 70s.

More information here

It is one thing to expect the government to hold the hands and baby every capable citizen in its nation and another thing entirely to expect the government to take care of its citizens that are completely incapable of doing so themselves.

Does it matter how his, or any other person's mental illness came about? It is up to us and our governments, able capable people in first world countries to look out for our less fortunate fellow Homo sapiens.

Why? If they don't then who will? It is not a handout, it is services that must be provided for handicapped individuals to survive.

Tundra, I am saying that it isn't the job of the federal government to supply care for those with mental illness who can't afford the price themselves.

I just think it is more a state issue.

The federal government shouldn't pick one group of people and give them free treatment.

In the end, it really doesn't matter who pays, I am just saying that it should be a local matter.

Also if by some miracle or a uprising, pork items were made illegal, the individuals would have more money to pay for such services.
=================================================

Actually what I would like to see is a semi-socialist federal health program.

The federal government (and possibly states as well) would give 100% scholarships to med students, possibly providing room and board as well.

The residency would be in federal hospitals where they would be paid more than today's residents get paid.

Even after the residency, when they were full doctors/surgeons/nurses/etc they would work for the government. Yeah, I know the government can't run a business effectively. Well they could if we insisted.

Anyway the government would run a sort of WalMart of Medicine.

The federal doctors would be paid as government employees, they may not be driving around in a new Porsche, but they would still be paid well, and would not be saddled with the huge student debt.

There prices would be affordable and reasonable as dictated by the government.

Of course, one wouldn't have to accept a US scholarship, one could go the conventional way.

The cost would be minimal especially when medicaid/medicare could be eliminated or reduced.
Also doctors offices/hospitals etc would be ran at a profit, just not small-country profits. This would further reduce the cost in taxpayer dollars.

As I said, look at what WalMart accomplished, small profits add up to huge bottom lines.

The medical offices would still be ran as a business, and should overcome some of the problems facing socialized medicine in other countries.