Wow...touchy much? Never said a thing about you personally...no need to make it that way when it wasn't.
Apologize if I came off harsh. But I really dislike the perception that attorneys get guilty people off if they have enough money.
Part A of what I have bolded above...my question is by who? By the attorneys? By the judge? They aren't making the decision. The jury is 12 "regular" people. They make up their own standards, and if they believe what they want to believe (a la OJ) then it doesn't matter what the "professional standards" are.
Most experts are medical, and are held to a professional standard... not by judge or jury, but by their profession.
Part B above...you and I will just have to disagree, but that's not surprising since my experience is from a different angle regarding the mental health "experts" than yours (not passing judgement, just saying we're in different places).
My experience is limited to what i've seen. And I've never "seen" an expert give a false opinion just because he was getting a lot of money for it. Never seen it. I've seen experts get a lot of money for their opinion and come back with a contradictory opinion, then have to disclose it to the other side. Devastating - wish you could buy your way out of it when it backfires like that.
As far as mental health experts go, your guess is as good as mine. But experts aren't allowed to testify on a subject unless they establish their qualifications. They aren't allowed to testify to theories or opinions unless they're medically accepted. And they're not supposed to testify dishonestly, both from a legal and professional perspective.
Wow, if you believe that, you are completely clueless and naive. There are doctors who go around the country giving "expert testimony" for money and that's it. that's how they make their living. I've seen anecdotes in medical journals that detail the ridiculous "opinions" that these guys will give for a hefty sum. It's not informed at all. It's amazing what 'recognized experts" will say outside the field of medicine and for a buck.
Well Tibor, I wouldn't expect you to make a point without being an a__. But since you brought it up...
I can't speak for the law in Texas, but in Ohio, a medical expert has to dedicate a large portion of their medical income to out-of-court practice in order to even be competent to testify.
Funny, as a police officer, I find that it tends to revolve around whether or not the prosecutor has a tee time. If so, better give a sweet deal so there's no risk of going to trial. The problem is that prosecutors who get a rep for cutting deals get bullied by defense attorneys, no matter how solid the case.
I personally don't see how giving crack cocaine dealers/spouse beaters/thieves with multiple convictions judicical release helps society at all. They have shown that they shown no remorse by repeating the crime or another. This has nothing to do with this case, it's just my little rant.
As far as this case is concerned, I don't see how a woman who drowned her children can contribute anything positive to society...she certainly didn't even look out for her own children.
Well, I don't know what prosecutors you're dealing (Franklin County probably), but deals get cut so that the docket can stay clear. Otherwise, the wheels of justice would probably move slower than they already do.
As far as looking out for her children, apparently according to her statement and testimony of her expert(s), she was insane enough to think she was looking out for them.
