Should She Be Sterilized? - Law & Order
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2020
- Stream Law & Order on Peacock: pck.tv/46lNAcm
From Season 5, Episode 7 "Precious" - Briscoe and Logan become suspicious of a woman who could be suffering from Munchausen syndrome by proxy when her husband reports their infant daughter missing.
Subscribe: / @lawandordernbc
This is the official TH-cam channel for Law & Order. Watch all of the official clips from the series, some of the best moments from within the criminal justice system, where the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.
Watch Law & Order on Google Play: bit.ly/2IbIu71
Watch Law & Order on iTunes apple.co/2Ia46QZ
#LawAndOrder - บันเทิง
They cut off before the best part. Adam, Jack , and Claire are walking out of the building, I guess months later, when Jack says she had her baby in prison. Adam says that by the time she gets out, the kid should be able to defend itself.
Where can I watch the episodes
Sana peacock, NBCs new digital streaming service
Well at least that baby has a chance to survive unlike it’s poor siblings. Thanks goodness they decided to let the baby in prison who knows if she would have ran away or killed the baby again
The scene wasn't months later. They discussed that the defendant wanted to file a motion postpone her sentence until she had the baby. Whether or not it was accepted is a mystery.
BWF
@@aaronwalker1678 It only has Season 13 on now. Any idea why that is?
I'm with McCoy on this one. That couple shouldn't have any kids, not after the murder of their child. Maybe they didn't have any control over it. Maybe they didn't mean to do it.
But after the murder of multiple infants, she shouldn't have kids. Not after this.
A broken mind does not justify damaging actions. That's what I say. If the jury can't put her up as a murderer then it's best to put in a contingency plan.
The issue is the enormous ramifications that present themselves if the judge allows this to go through. As they discussed earlier. Once they go down this path, going back is a difficult task if later it is decided we made a mistake. The law says we cannot punish someone before they have commited a crime. If we start to punish people before that leads to massive issues and societal problems all across the board. It's a scarry, terrifying can of worms to open.
@@ee-hangodfrey5204 Yes, but if the jury won't say that she's a murderer and let her get away. How many more of her own children will she murder?
@@foolslayer9416 I saw a recent reddit post about a woman who said, "I love my kids. I'm pregnant again. When I go to my doctor, I'm gonna find out whether I'm having a girl or an abortion. #killallmen."
Scary stuff.
@@theiran Sex selective abortion? How's that worked out for China and India?
@@theiran That's fucked up.
This is McCoy at his finest; making a solid argument and sticking to his guns. Even thought forced sterilization isn't a popular choice, I think it's a logical suggestion in this case. It's one hell of a powerful conversation for them to be having. This episode is so remarkable it almost makes up for "Mad Dog," where McCoy does go way over the line.
Popular opinion isn't always right.
what happened in 'mad dog'??!!!
@@blowdrolo McCoy crossed more lines then necessary using ends justify the means
nah. sterilization is still bad. mccoy basically stated that she can't be rehabilitated to normalcy and sterilization is the only option. which is self righteous
Nah. Just have them declared unfit parents and CPS takes the child every time.
This was absolutely one of the most gut wrenching episodes. The way her husband finally had to just let go and let justice happen...Too little, too late. But for her, it was done. At the very end, she was complaining that she didn’t want to give birth while in prison. McCo
Eh, she probably just wanted to chance to kill the baby and be like oh no the stress killed my baby poor me !
"Marty...don't do this to me."
With that line, she revealed her true nature. Only she-herself mattered. Her husband didn't matter - why reveal the existence of a pregnancy she had no plans to let survive? The child didn't matter - it was only a means to an end.
"Marty...don't let them keep me from doing what I want to do."
And at the end of the show Claire tells Jack Mrs. Willick had her baby in prison. Jack says, "Well, in 8 years, it should be able to defend itself". 😳
So the wife murders 4 of his children, husband does nothing. He even helped cover up one of them, putting himself in the cross-hairs for prosecution. What a pathetic doormat!
I guess 5 was the magic number for when he finally grew a spine.
It was actually “only” 3 (there was a foster child who wasn’t killed) but you still completely correct.
The woman is not the only person who needs help. You should be talking about himself, too.
if a girl I was with killed my kid then she would be in the grave with them
He's is what we can call a " retro simp"
if you think 4 children is bad, I just read about the original case that this episode was based off and the lady killed 9 of her children till she got caught
Take her child away after birth and lock the unstable woman away in a psychiatric hospital.
Let Husband divorced her to raised his child
@@aparnarajesh So this would be done for every other child non-stop? The point is she wouldn't stop even if their taken from her and would continue to burden both the system and the lives she would produce. If her husband manages to move on, this wouldn't deter her either as she would continue with others. Is it worth the trouble if even one life can avoid being smothered out as it begins?
@@aparnarajesh No, lock him up also. Put the child up for adoption. I don't care if he didn't kill the child, he was apart of it.
BlackRose Should we have the wife executed as well for crimes against humanity?
@@Optimaloptimus if they're going to execute her then yes. Is she being equal punishment that fits the crime.
The law might not punish people for crimes not committed yet, but the law has a moral responsibility to be proactive in preventing crime.
I agree, that's the basic argument for taking away driving licences away from drunk or dangerous drivers after all, even if they didn't kill anyone or crash their car they are putting people lives in jeopardy and is a risk that cannot be allowed on the road, although the severity of the crimes or their punishments don't compare the argument is the same, just as these dangerous drivers are taken off the road to prevent future crimes they haven't committed yet, she should either confess and go to jail or except the surgery to save life of future innocent infants which have yet to be born or killed. It might not be a perfect analogy but I thinks its a fair argument.
I wonder, in what country do you not consider cutting people's body parts as a form of punishment?
Honestly, I think anyone convicted of child abuse or the murder of a child has lost the right to procreate. As anti-government as I can be, this is one thing I believe is within their right in specific circumstances. You are not entitled to children if you have a history of hurting them.
“You are not entitled to children if you have a history of hurting them” you put it perfectly!! Especially with the word entitled. People are too entitled, and too often with the case of children. If only more people would understand this.
I agree!
Until someone is falsely accused.
To easy, execute them
Yep
I'm with Jack on this. Obviously sterilization applied to entire groups is hideous and evil, but when applied specifically to a woman who keeps having babies for the seemingly express purpose of killing them? Then it's simply being safe. I understand the reluctance, too, but offering it as part of a plea bargain should soften the blow for any particular precedents that might occur.
Okay but where do you draw the line thats the counter argument obviously here i am with you in this she deserved it to protect innocent children but if you open this can of worms it wouldn't stop with this woman
@@jojoabushkr3343 just look at what's happening now. Do people have bodily autonomy or does the state have the right to dictate medical procedures in order for them to.enjoy their lives.
@@wakcedout it doesnt have any jurisdiction
@@jojoabushkr3343 no line, sterilize all unjust murders
@@wakcedout Bodily autonomy should be given to sane individuals.
“Don’t do this to me”
She can’t even see a measure taken to protect her child as anything but being about her
I remember this one vividly. The sister in law talking about how the mother would only cry at the child's funeral to get attention for herself. Plus, how could you even want to
with her? Knowing what it could lead to? Get a vasectomy. Nice women get dumped by their boyfriends and husbands every day but crazy baby killer lady gets the super loyal
spouse? I know it was just a show but that bit always annoyed me.
Tell me about it and the thing is that Marty knew that she had murdred their daughter and instead chose to be quiet about it and was all about keeping her safe, he even was like "I want you to go somewhere to get help" which kind of hinted he still believed in saving her
"Every nine months, she butchers one more child" - Cannibal Corpse.
(I know I'm commenting 3 years late 🙋🏽♀️) I just searched that up and that line should have given me a warning ⚠️ smart move using that lyric
Edit: I've also never been more confused about a song
6:07 ... The way that woman looked at her husband when he was spilling the beans? That psycho would've chewed his face off if she could...
And that's all women for you...learn the wise way or the hard way...the choice is yours.
I remember watching this episode. That psycho only killed herself and her feelings, she smothered four infants, two of them her own biological children.
I say snip the bitch. Before she smothers baby number five.
It's the face of someone used to having power over her doormat husband. Used to having him look the other way, and even help cover up her crimes. And then one day, that power was yanked away from her. She didn't like it one little bit. Who would?
@@MastaSmack what
@@i_5695 An incel or MGTOW, no one deserving an explanation really
Greatest Prosecutor ever. Its a real hard debate, but Jack is my favorite good or bad.
Mine too. The character and the actor.
definitely!!!
Him and Ben Stone 🙏
Kudo to Jack McCoy for making an unpopular and controversial statement this woman needs to be sterilized because she only has children to kill them which isn't right and what she is doing is evil, heinous and disgusting and the government has no right in what a man or woman does with her body but this case they should be able to stop this woman from procreating and that husband of her is no good because he knows what she is doing but he gives her a pass when he puts on that pathetic poor act.
What's worse. In the episode, all the woman cared about was herself and her feelings. She murdered three babies, one of them wasn't even her own flesh and blood. She's guilty as sin.
"We don't punish people for crimes they haven't committed yet" No, because you prevent them from happening. When they're sentencing people to psychiatric hospitals they say "you can be released when you're no longer a threat to yourself or others"....maybe he should brush up on his scales.
The ending freaked me out.
The actress playing the mother really played that scene.
Starting around 4:30 going through to 6:00, she is tripping.
The look in her eyes the muscles in her face, that lady nailed it.
That was truly scary to watch.
Yes, she definitely had a case of the crazy eyes
He shut her down with that segregation quip.
I am a prosecutor. I meet William Fitzpatrick the District Attorney in Syracuse New York who prosecuted the woman who this episode is based on. HIs contempt for the real life husband is evident to this day... and shared by me
Can you tell us more about the real case
The actress who portrays Eileen Willick (Julie Boyd) does an amazing job. It is completely convincing that she is mentally ill.
We're not talking about forcible sterilization, we're talking about a plea bargain. She can choose to be sterilized in exchange for no prison time. Adolf Hitler was all about dictatorship, but that woman had due process.
Exactly. Comparing McCoy's plea to that of a Nazi and a genocidal dictator is uncalled for.
Unfortunately, that is not how most SJWs would see it. They would be rallying about woman's rights and saying fuck the kids. That would be the problem.
@@alcoholandfun243 There is a history in the UK of offering a "deal" to gay pisoners. Allen Touring, the creator of the machine that broke the Nazi Enigma code, was famously offered a plea deal of chemical castration or prison time. He chose castration and it slowly killed him. Prison time vs. bodily harm is not justice.
@@victoriarotramel2274 He was gay, not a child murderer.
@@victoriarotramel2274 I understand your point and what was done to him was a grave injustice. However, he didn't commit a crime and she did. Not only that, but she suffered from a condition that would make her commit that crime repeatedly. She was a danger to herself and any future children she brought to the world.
I suppose an alternate option to this would have been to have her go get tested to see if she is pregnant about every 6 months. If she was she would have to have a supervised pregnancy and when the infant was born it would be taken by the state. That way, she could not harm the baby but her bodily rights were not infringed on.
Convicted child molesters get severe restrictions put on them AFTER they have served their sentence. They have to register as an offender, they aren't allowed to live within certain range of a school, they aren't allowed to work with children, they are usually not allowed to be alone with children and many other restrictions. How isn't that punishing them for crimes they haven't committed yet? Remember the prison sentence is the sentence for the crime that they have already committed.
If you can put such restrictions on convicted child molesters and justify it, I don't see how you can be against what McCoy is advocating for here. Sure the requirements here are more severe, but so is the act of having a child with the sole purpose of killing it, but in general molesters don't kill their victims.
So I am with McCoy on this one.
Are.. Are you...
I can't tell if you're advocating for pedos, or if that's just a comparison you made because you thought it would support your viewpoint but I am sincerely hoping it's the latter..
@@StarryRainment I thought it was pretty clear, I never advocated for the punishments for molesters to be lowered and didn't advocate for compassion for them. I was using how justice deals with convicted child molester to compare it with how justice could treat a woman that has children just to kill them. Molesters get punished for crimes they haven't committed yet, so I don't see why a woman where you have a clear pattern, shouldn't be treated the same.
My comment was responding to the DA saying that we don't punish people for future crimes, which we do and then pointing out one example where we do and then I used that example to justify my agreement with McCoy.
I also don't THINK it supports my viewpoint it DOES support my viewpoint. Take your emotions and moral out of it and just think legally.
@@Arjay404 There lots of judicial double standard most of them based on gender
are those things punishments for the convicted molestor? Or protections for the general public?
@@sammiepittman3130 Regardless of what the answer is to your question the same could apply to the woman in this story.
Do I want her sterilized to punish her or to protect her future babies?
In one of the last episodes of Law & Order, Cuttler reminds Jack about that case and he says that in the end, the sterilization was turned down by in appeal.
Really which one?
"You can't legally commit suicide"... LMAO, like it matters to the guy commiting suicide if is legal or not. What are you going to do judicial system? Processing his dead body?
They could if he was unsuccessful.
Euthanasia is often seen as suicide
@@yomie7026 Which is controversial.
It has to be illegal so that they can try to stop it from happening if they see someone attempting it
They can prosecute if the attempt was unsuccessful.
The dad needs to keep that kid far away from his wife.
Your blind if you think they'd let either of them near that kid. While he finally did the right thing in a crime like this would you give the kid back to the father.
There was an lady in my parents hometown that got on welfare right after high school (apparently that was the normal thing to do in my parents run down town). One of her friends told her to have an baby to get more welfare money. So she did. 5 boyfriends and 5 kids later the government ordered for her to sterilized or they would take her kids away.
that's outright fraud
@otaviofrn_adv absolutely. The crazy thing is that it happens every day.
@@hydrangeas_lover Yeah, but like... three times every day across the entire nation.
Not that many people actually do this, but it's been used as a political checkers piece. I won't even call it a chess piece because it's dumb.
@@RealCaptainJawsI doubt the number is that low
One of the hardest hitting episodes of this series. Because I could see all parts of the argument. Claire’s fears. Jack’s need to protect lives. Innocent babies put up against the possible slippery slopes of misuse. I miss shows like this.
4 children get murdered in similar ways around the same age...and the husband noticed NOTHING??
It’s denial too
He helped her cover
McCoy has been in the game for awhile, how he talks and how he sees the world. He has prosecuted so many cases, thinking 'there is no way there will be a worse case then this one' only to be proven wrong time after time. Seeing the true evil in the world. You might argue 'He has no compassion'. How could he after the people hes seen? Here he's dealing with a woman who willingly murders her children for no logical reason! He seems callous and thats cause he is. You sorta come immune to compassion when you've been in the justice system as long as he has.
McCoy is showing compassion he is just not showing pity for this woman. It’s one thing to have a mental illness. It’s another thing to allow yourself to spread the damage. If she had Ebola and spread it all around America without remorse that would be biological terrorism! he did the right thing
Or as I always say, "eventually cynicism just becomes observation."
He tries to cut the process
"We don't punish people for crimes they haven't committed yet".
Surely that's exactly what we do when we assess someone who's in jail for something they did, and are deciding whether it's safe to release them on parole.
That is not the same. Parole means you are out of prison before you serve your complete sentence.
Inflicting punishment vs. withholding reward.
Nobody has Right to being paroled, being paroled is a clemency. What you have a right to is to be released after you have done your time in full, now the state has found a way around that with civil commitment which really is two bites of the same apple (no, the fact that the civil commitment is done by a different department does not count)m,
Innocent children are being murdered, something has to be done. Those children have rights, who's gonna defend their rights?. The kids she's killing have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like every other American.
A good example of the ends justifying the means.
America = The whole world
She killed children long after they were born, nothing bad would happen if the murderer was sterilized.
14 yrs later he realized his mistake when his successor tried the same move and he blocked it.
Procreation is NOT a right. It needs to be shown that people are ready to step up and be parents and take on responsibility. I agree with McCoy. Some people will never stop killing in the way they want and those crocodile tears doesn't touch me. If this was a man going around killing his children, they would have put him UNDER the jail!
So if the government made it illegal for blacks to procreate that would be fine?
Rights can be violated, such as the right to liberty when people are incarcerated, but only after they have been convicted fairly.
@@TheOwenMajor I never said that. This has nothing to do with race.
I'm saying that if someone kills another person, there will be consequences. Same goes with getting pregnant: the second that baby is created in the womb, it is not all about the mother and that is where this woman went wrong. She wanted attention and she believed killing her own children achieved that.
@@bellerain381 You said procreation is not a right, I made an example of why it absolutely is a right.
Look, I know what you are saying, just don't talk about rights when you don't have the critical thinking needed to form opinions of them.
@@TheOwenMajor 😂 Who are you to talk? Belle was talking about procreation and you jumped straight on the race bandwagon. Stop making false equivalence fallacies and come back when you have the critical thinking needed to express a true counter argument 😉
@@TheOwenMajor Belle never say anything about race and people like you need to stop bring up the race card
Man like McCoy. He always came with those spicy lines of argument.
Somehow he always comes off as a bit radical in his thoughts (maybe it’s his delivery), while his values seem to be so fundamentally basic to most people’s line of thinking.
"This is invasive and irreversible," Yeah well so is killing babies so I guess there is Karma.
She also murdered a baby she adopted. She's gone too far.
They referenced this episode years later in 2009ish when Michael Cutter tries to make a plea conditional of a mom not forcing her brain damaged daughter into an unnecessary procedure. He also fails because McCoy stops him, admitting he was wrong for what he tried to do in this episode
But he wasn't wrong.
@@mobulis The fact that McCoy was advocating for surgical/irreversible/invasive sterilization probably would've been the point on which he reversed his view. Perhaps, if there were a middle ground between taking birth control pills and having one's tubes tied (I'm not sure about the medical technology available at the time), McCoy would've advocated for that and been able to hold his moral ground, even years later.
@@tintinismybelgian he was right to suggest that for a plea, if she keeps killing her children then take away her ability to have kids, no more victims, simply, easy and effective
@@tintinismybelgian even if there wasn't a middle ground he was still right to suggest sterilization. murder is pretty irreversible too you know.
@@dietotaku Perhaps, making her live as a cloistered nun with no access to male contact could have been an option, if nunneries were part of the penal system in the modern era.
I always loved that the characters had honest, intellectual debates on hot topics. Most shows state one side, usually pretty left wing, and any opposition is some irrational strawman presented to bolster the writers views.
This is one of those episodes where I agree with McCoy, but could not allow myself to do what he did.
Even though I agree with McCoy I also agree that there was no way he was going to get a judge to agree.
true... only one that was real nuts or had absolutely nothing to lose would agree with this. the headache would be umberable
That was a cop-out from storytelling perspective. Rather than deal with the issue head-on, they used the "oh, she's pregnant again!" device to find a justification.
Send a strongly worded letter to those writers from all those years ago.
"You're a good person"
No she's not dude she killed her own child
*children*
Several
She is ill
This was one of my favorite episodes of the franchise.
These long clips are the next best thing to whole episodes
The husband snivels "You're a good person" when it's obvious that she's a murderer: she kills her own babies (AFTER THEY'RE BORN).
This is what good tv shows should be: discussing touchy social issues from angles that are not PC.
Fantastic series, the storylines and plots are amazing
She clearly needs psychiatric help.
The woman needs more than psychiatric help, prison and she needs to sterilized so she cannot have any more children who she will eventually kill.
3:35 Judge: Wow, didn't see that coming.
They've certainly picked up the most appropriate actress for this role...she has really a crazy face with those eyes wide open..she really seems nut!
It was like Morena Baccarin in How I Met Your Mother. She was nuts
And the husband gets no punishment? That's ridiculous.
« You’re a good person, I just don’t know why you do this ».... « this » referring to murdering their children.... yup, real amazing lady right there...
I mean, it didn't *have* to be sterilization. They could have said she had to spend time in an inpatient facility until it was determined she was no longer a danger to children. Or they could have said this woman will be on probation for the next 10 years pending psychological treatment, and any children she has will be taken away at birth, just as with any other unfit mother.
Do you know how much that would put on the system? Who will take the children? Are we assuming that her husband would be the father? How is he going to deal with that? And at what point can a psychiatrist comfortably determine that she is no longer a danger and can be an effective mother? Too many dependencies and unknowns; it does sound and feel barbaric to do the sterilization, but depending on the situation, it may be the only solution.
I always wondered why no one ever looked happy on this show and then theirs episodes like this, I think I get it.
1:03 McCoy blew the roof off the place in frustration!
hahahahahha lol
Uh, Skinner vs. Oklahoma said that sterilization couldn't be used as a punishment, not that it couldn't be forcibly performed.
They're not advocating forced sterilization. The choice is between prison time and sterilization.
I love when Law & Order discusses the political, legal, and moral factors about a crime. It keeps it grounded in reality, in addition to the fact that it’s based on a real case.
The arguments are sound, but I have to agree with McCoy on the Neutral aspect. Many things in this world are Neutral in nature, it just depends on the intent behind it. One I like to think of is Chaos and Harmony. Both are Neutral, but how they are used makes a difference. Chaos is always painted as evil, because having things be random and unpredictable is somehow bad, while Harmony is good, because structure and order is best. But, having things change up in life from time to time is nice; keeps it interesting. Also, having everything stay the same and rigid is something cults do. If she's having kids so she can kill them for attention, then removing her ability to have children, as well as adopt/foster and care for children, is a good choice.
question, would you say that the neutral aspect applies to the citizens palestine
@@husseinhoballah9590 I'm not sure what you mean, but of you're asking about Neutral forces being used for a certain intent, it does depend on context. If a person commits an act that is malicious, but not through their own actions, but by others(i.e. Brainwashing), than the argument can be made that the person just needs to be corrected. They should still be punished for said actions, but to a lesser extent due to the underlying circumstances. The woman in this clip is not being manipulated, she is acting of her own free will. Yes, she does have mental instability, so therapy is a much better option. But, it does not guarantee she will be fully cured, thus the risk of her continuing the crime is always present. If given medication, what is to stop her from not taking it if she feels she doesn't need it anymore? This could, and most likely would, cause her to relapse, and continue killing infants in her care.
With other situations, any who try to use Neutral forces for their own benefit are guilty. Religious/Government groups and other types of communities who attack another to promote Harmony for themselves, to cause Chaos for others, or both must be looked at to find why they are committing the act. The guilt level will depend on this. With Religion, many cults use this to gain power, meaning they are fully guilty. Ancient religions, like Islam and Christianity, can be due to two things. The person could either be misrepresenting the text for their own benefit, meaning full guilt, or the person is misreading the text, or being manipulated by a higher authority. This should be handled more civilly, but punishment for guilt must still happen. Groups like Government are always acting for themselves, to gain and keep power. This is full guilt and needs full punishment.
Aspects of life can be black and white, but there is also a VASTLY larger area of gray. Take the time to understand the context, and you can find the reason behind actions, and judge correctly. I hope this at least gives you some answer to your question.
@@CartoonLab If a government enforces a law that's considered illegal under international law, can that government be indicted on corruption charges, considering the case you represented earlier?
First of all God is the ultimate Judge and Jesus is the only way to heaven and there is no such thing as neutral it is either evil sin or it isn't. The ethic for this is that procreation is a human right, just like the right to body Integerty, things like abortion are evil sin, routine Infant Circumsion is an evil mutilation and sin against boys, and the government doesn't have the right to force anyone to war, because God's law is higher than man's law, so no that that's our of the way because that's the basic foundation everyone should have at least, murdering someone is obviously blatant evil sin, now there are ways to prevent these things without doing other evil.
Nothing is neutral
I thought it was Alyson hannigan in the thumbnail 😆
“Times change, perception changes”- but it’s the people that change them!
I think it's called "Postpartum Psychosis", but unfortunately it's hard for the system to separate the Illness from the Intentional, especially if the mother's argument is of that symptom.
In this case though I'm pretty she's addicted and does it on purposes, because she crazy.
The best law and order episodes always had no villains, just victims.
I'm carer for an ASD son. Any partner he gets will be at his level of functioning or lower. He can barely look after himself so I don't want him getting his partner - who as I said may be at a lower level of functional capacity than he is - getting pregnant. At all. So I'd much rather he has the snip before he gets involved with anyone. Because any child he co-creates will need to be cared for by the grandparents. I've done my time in the trenches, I don't have the mental capacity to do it all again. More so considering he's still basically a child himself from a psychosocial viewpoint.
Whether people like it or not - these are discussions we have to have.
Cases like this blow me away cause these guys are not even wanting to sterilize her. Dude, it's either you put her on death penalty, or keep her life and sterilize her. Even in prison, there's still a chance she'll try to have a kid. Look down on McCoy all you want, but you can't say that sterilizing her is the law invading the rights to one's own body when the law continuously fights against us on said rights.
McCoy is absolutely correct. Someone like that should NEVER be allowed out of prison if she can create victims for herself.
I thought they were talking about my mom 🎃
How come the husband finally decided to confess when he found out she was pregnant again ?
Becuase he finally realized she needed help.
Forced sterilization was not just something Nazi Germany did. The US was big on it too, and it went on for even longer than in Germany (US: mainly 1907 to 1963, but the last one was in the 80s. Germany: 1933-1945). Germany's sterilization policies was actually inspired by California's! When this episode aired, the last forced sterilization (the last one justified by eugenics at least) was just over a decade ago. Only difference was Germany targeted Jews, while the US targeted Black people and Native Americans. It's so recent, the vitims of this are still alive. We can not forget this.
Questions above my paygrade
mccoy is right this time
Love it...Jack was so right !
McCoy later says he never should have done this.
Whats so cool about this show is there is almost zero background music. The story sucks you in not the music
the new season of this show they should do some kind of follow up to this
This seems like an issue in which post partum is considered psychopathic rather than a mental illness that needs to be treated. If we had a better understanding of post partum and a better mental health system this wouldn’t be an issue.
Later in the episode she's diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome. The killing of the babies is for the sympathy and drama. You make a good point that severe post partum needs more exposure but that's not the plot here.
This isn’t postpartum psychosis if it were she wouldn’t of harmed her adoptive child she has munchhausen by proxy syndrome she craves the attention she gets from injured, ill or dead children
Shouldn't the husband be held accountable as well as an accessory? He knew she did it and he didn't get a deal to be spared if he tells the truth.
Why is there no option to have her committed to a psychiatric ward until she’s gone through menopause, and therefore, would have not be able to have children anymore? She doesn’t have to be sterilized or physically violated in any way, but she can get the help she needs And there’s no risk of her condition harming anyone else.
Any violent crime against a child should be an automatic capital case.
At first glance I thought it was Alyson Hannigan from BTVS
I know that someone said John shea was suppose to take over and he couldn’t because of Lois and Clark so they went with Sam
I really hope the child gets send far away from these parents and that Marty comes to his senses and divorce Eileen
The way she said "Dont do this to me" shows not 1 sign of regret or remorse but that she had been caught
She is ill.
I think this show predicted that lady who abused her daughter.
Jill Hennessy is so cute!!! And her accent !
They actually can legally order sterilization if the mother is a continuous danger to her children. Sadly it is not enforced enough for both males and females!!
"We talked to ypur doctor, he said youre pregnant." Umm i think thys a hippa violation
This was the closest Jack seems to have been to Stone, but nowhere near the same in terms of his own extremes for the sake of morals. Very compelling
Technically is it still forcible sterilization if she can either agree or deny the plea? Like i understand it’s an unusual stipulation and can be wildly misused if used willynilly. But she can still deny the plea and go to trial right?
So what happened? What episode is this?
That's the weirdest aberration !
The incidence of good looking female lawyers in this show is quite remarkable.
What’s the title of this episode?
Did I miss something here? Jack talked to her doctor, who told him she was pregnant? Did Jack get a court order for such an obvious violation of doctor patient privelege?
There is no way in hell a Court would order someone sterilized.
Courts order men to get chemically castrated all the time is its not a new thing.
Skinner was more liberty jack, not less
That woman drove me nuts.
Taking away her means of expressing her emotional imbalance only means she will need to find some other form of expression.
Some would say both acts are evil
shouldnt the husband have been arrested too?
If the husband is so concerned, maybe he should get the snip. Not an invasive procedure, unlike for women, where it’s a major abdominal surgery. It won’t stop her from getting pregnant by someone else, but at least it’s not HIS kid, and he can divorce her for unfaithfulness.
That doesn't solve the problem. She has to be sterilized or else this is just going to keep happening.