What punishment is fit for this woman?

[Argus]

I know it's a specific case but it's also a general question on what do we take into consideration when sentencing someone, even for doing a horrible crime. Clearly if someone is mentally ill that has to be taken into consideration, and probably was in this case, for the boyfriend will surely get worse. But was it appropriate? What she did was unacceptable, though, and she doesn't seem to understand that. So without stiff punishment what deters her in future?

This is a case of a woman convicted of imprisoning and committing sexual assault of two teenage girls (with her boyfriend) over a long weekend.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-woman-gets-prison-time-for-using-teens-as-sex-slaves

edited to add further information from a Christie Blatchford column

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/prison-no-place-for-caroline-budd

Edited September 3, 2016 by Argus

[poochy]

This is one of those cases where it sounds to me like she needs a lot of help, probably in an institution, it sounds like she was a victim as well.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is one of those cases where it sounds to me like she needs a lot of help, probably in an institution, it sounds like she was a victim as well.

Ya. And her bf must be a real dick, or ill as well.

Sounds like our society has failed this girl, she needed serious help a long time ago, and needs it now too, but locked up in an institution until she can at least get healthier

[Guest]

I agree. Prison probably isn't the best bet for her. Where did they put Vince Li?

The important thing is that she doesn't hurt anyone else.

The BF should probably never get out.

[TimG]

Why is this woman any different from Karla Homolka?

[Argus]

Why is this woman any different from Karla Homolka?

Did anyone allege she had the mental age of a 13 year old? Did she have a long history of things like attempted suicide?

[Hal 9000]

The problem is; she can't actually be helped. If she has the mental capacity of a 13 YO, and given the other professional comments ,they are almost certainly saying she has FAS. If that's the case, she can easily be coerced to do the exact same thing. People with FAS or people with a diminished capacity don't learn from cause and effect, and they don't learn from counselling or punishment either.

[?Impact]

While I agree that there needs to be a 'Not Criminally Responsible' distinction in the case of mental illness, it does not mean that the individual should have no consequences for their actions. The dollars needs to be in the proper health care facilities rather than correctional services. Someone who commits an act against another person needs to be properly monitored as an in-patient in the proper facility, and just as much care needs to be placed in changing them from in-patient to out-patient status as we do in releasing someone from full-time custody to day-parol or full parol, including monitoring them as they re-enter the community. Just because someone has a NCR designation for a crime does not mean that the crime was not committed, and that no restrictions need to be placed on the individual.

[Smoke]

Did anyone allege she had the mental age of a 13 year old? Did she have a long history of things like attempted suicide?

I would venture that an overwhelming majority of 13 year old's know the difference between right and wrong.

[cybercoma]

The problem is; she can't actually be helped.

Is that your professional opinion as someone with a doctorate in psychology and decades of experience with mental health treatments and outcomes?

[Hal 9000]

Is that your professional opinion as someone with a doctorate in psychology and decades of experience with mental health treatments and outcomes?

There is a difference between mental health and diminished mental capacity.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Rue]

Tim G without a proper and fullsome psychiatric report it is impossible to properly answer your question as to whether this female rapist is comparable to Karla Hamolka or other female rapists but even with one it may remain illusive from giving you a clear answer.

When someone says someone else has the equivalency of a 13 year old it depends what they mean. Are they referring to intellectual or emotional i.q.? They probably are referring to been emotional maturity level.

If this is what they mean, i.e., she has a personality disorder or neurological condition or a psychological condition that renders her a 13 year old emotionally, that may be a mitigating circumstance when considering the length of sentence says the law, but not necessarily for the purpose of determining liability or criminal culpability.

The test of getting off completely for such a crime using a defense of mental impairment/illness (we no longer say insanity) is to determine whether at the time of the crime, this individual knew what she was doing was wrong. If she did, then her emotional delay or even mental illness or neurological illness (if that is what it is) does not absolve her of criminal liability but it might be taken into consideration with her sentence.

Here's my problem. At 13 sure kids are wacky and down right unpredictable and often stupid, but they know rape is wrong.

So with that in mind and not having sufficient info, I would say I don't think she can get off on a mental impairment at time of crime defense that prevented her from forming mens rea (criminal intent).

It may be once found guilty and at the sentencing hearing that if the Judge feels she was manipulated and controlled, they might take that into consideration as to the length of her sentence or when she is eligible for parole if she obtains counselling and treatment.

From what I know of rapists, female or male, the vast majority know its wrong to rape and when they rape to please others they still know its wrong.

Yes if I put a gun to your head and order you to rape someone you might but that is rare.

In the case at hand and most co-rape cases, the rapists reinforce each others' already pre-existing desires to force themselves on others. They don't just develop the taste to rape from being told to.

There is no doubt the defense lawyer will want to pin it all on the boyfriend saying her impairment prevented her from ever knowing what she was doing but sexual deviancy behaviour dosn't work that way as a general rule.

While female rapists are rare and some say they did so to please their boyfriends, their desire to hurt others pre-exists rhe boyfriend who they use as a method to express their desire not create it. They channel their sexual desire through the male not because of the male telling them to do it.

So ss she different than Homolka, in one sense probably not, i.e., they both know what they did was wrong.

In Homolka's case she is a cold blooded sociopat with no feelings for others.

The one we are talking about now, she's probably has a different different set of mental issues and has feelings and a lot is determined by how violent she was. If in the act of rape she was violent it usually indicates one set of disorders-if she was not violent and/or just watched or was very passive its another.

The more violent she was, the more probable she could even be a sexual sadist and sociopath.

Its a good question you and Argus discuss.

What I will tell you for sure is that 99% of repeat rapists remain that way. You don't cure them. At best you can contain

their urges. Ironically prison, an open arena of rape is where most go.

Rapists to me need to be socially isolated. The only thing they understand as a negative consequence is being cut off from other humans.

Either that or you cut their parts off which our Charter of Rights probably does not allow.

The other sure fire way to stop them is placing a tiny electric implant in their brain which zaps them with electricity every time a certain part of their brain lights up which we have the technology now to do but certainly wuld b e cruel and unusual in that their urge would not go away but it would be zapped stopping them from acting on it.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Rue

[Hal 9000]

Tim G without a proper and fullsome psychiatric report it is impossible to properly answer your question as to whether this female rapist is comparable to Karla Hamolka or other female rapists but even with one it may remain illusive from giving you a clear answer.

When someone says someone else has the equivalency of a 13 year old it depends what they mean. Are they referring to intellectual or emotional i.q.? They probably are referring to been emotional maturity level.

If this is what they mean, i.e., she has a personality disorder or neurological condition or a psychological condition that renders her a 13 year old emotionally, that may be a mitigating circumstance when considering the length of sentence says the law, but not necessarily for the purpose of determining liability or criminal culpability.

The test of getting off completely for such a crime using a defense of mental impairment/illness (we no longer say insanity) is to determine whether at the time of the crime, this individual knew what she was doing was wrong. If she did, then her emotional delay or even mental illness or neurological illness (if that is what it is) does not absolve her of criminal liability but it might be taken into consideration with her sentence.

Here's my problem. At 13 sure kids are wacky and down right unpredictable and often stupid, but they know rape is wrong.

So with that in mind and not having sufficient info, I would say I don't think she can get off on a mental impairment at time of crime defense that prevented her from forming mens rea (criminal intent).

It may be once found guilty and at the sentencing hearing that if the Judge feels she was manipulated and controlled, they might take that into consideration as to the length of her sentence or when she is eligible for parole if she obtains counselling and treatment.

From what I know of rapists, female or male, the vast majority know its wrong to rape and when they rape to please others they still know its wrong.

Yes if I put a gun to your head and order you to rape someone you might but that is rare.

In the case at hand and most co-rape cases, the rapists reinforce each others' already pre-existing desires to force themselves on others. They don't just develop the taste to rape from being told to.

There is no doubt the defense lawyer will want to pin it all on the boyfriend saying her impairment prevented her from ever knowing what she was doing but sexual deviancy behaviour dosn't work that way as a general rule.

While female rapists are rare and some say they did so to please their boyfriends, their desire to hurt others pre-exists rhe boyfriend who they use as a method to express their desire not create it. They channel their sexual desire through the male not because of the male telling them to do it.

So ss she different than Homolka, in one sense probably not, i.e., they both know what they did was wrong.

In Homolka's case she is a cold blooded sociopat with no feelings for others.

The one we are talking about now, she's probably has a different different set of mental issues and has feelings and a lot is determined by how violent she was. If in the act of rape she was violent it usually indicates one set of disorders-if she was not violent and/or just watched or was very passive its another.

The more violent she was, the more probable she could even be a sexual sadist and sociopath.

Its a good question you and Argus discuss.

What I will tell you for sure is that 99% of repeat rapists remain that way. You don't cure them. At best you can contain

their urges. Ironically prison, an open arena of rape is where most go.

Rapists to me need to be socially isolated. The only thing they understand as a negative consequence is being cut off from other humans.

Either that or you cut their parts off which our Charter of Rights probably does not allow.

The other sure fire way to stop them is placing a tiny electric implant in their brain which zaps them with electricity every time a certain part of their brain lights up which we have the technology now to do but certainly wuld b e cruel and unusual in that their urge would not go away but it would be zapped stopping them from acting on it.

I agree with most of this, however, I think given the statements about her early childhood and the mentally diminished people that I've dealt with, I'd side with the idea that she is intellectually at the stage of a 13 YO, which contributes to her emotional state. And, with what has also been suggested by the psychologists and court, (The judge also noted that Budd’s comments about how the crimes made her a better person seemed “hedonistic.” Budd seems unaware of the extreme impact on her victims and has poor insight into her crimes.The doctor concluded that Budd “has a limited appreciation of the fact that what she had done was wrong.”), although she has the intellect of a 13YO, the disability almost always comes with a lack of empathy - if not outright sociopathic behaviour (although in her case it seems like a lack of empathy).

[?Impact]

The other sure fire way to stop them is placing a tiny electric implant in their brain which zaps them with electricity

Clockwork Orange - the sequel

[eyeball]

While I agree that there needs to be a 'Not Criminally Responsible' distinction in the case of mental illness, it does not mean that the individual should have no consequences for their actions.

Do you mean punishment when you say consequences?

Just because someone has a NCR designation for a crime does not mean that the crime was not committed, and that no restrictions need to be placed on the individual.

Whatever else it means it implies there will be a treatment prescribed for a patient as opposed to a punishment determined for a criminal.

[jacee]

While I agree that there needs to be a 'Not Criminally Responsible' distinction in the case of mental illness, it does not mean that the individual should have no consequences for their actions. The dollars needs to be in the proper health care facilities rather than correctional services. Someone who commits an act against another person needs to be properly monitored as an in-patient in the proper facility, and just as much care needs to be placed in changing them from in-patient to out-patient status as we do in releasing someone from full-time custody to day-parol or full parol, including monitoring them as they re-enter the community. Just because someone has a NCR designation for a crime does not mean that the crime was not committed, and that no restrictions need to be placed on the individual.

I agree.

"Not criminally responsible" doesn't mean 'not dangerous'.

.