Woman gets no prison time for stabbing her boyfriend over 100 times

[army judge]

Jurisdiction

California

The presiding judge attributed the decision to a lack of culpability, stating that "she had no control over her actions" during the psychotic episode.

By Scripps News Staff
Facebook ShareTweetEmailSMS
Posted: 5:23 p.m. EST Jan 24, 2024
Bryn Spejcher, a woman who stabbed her boyfriend over 100 times during a "cannabis-induced psychotic" episode, has been sentenced to two years of probation with no prison time.
In 2018, Spejcher went to the home of her boyfriend, 26-year-old Chad O'Melia, in Thousand Oaks, California. After smoking marijuana from a bong, she experienced a psychotic episode that led her to stab O'Melia to death and stab herself multiple times, according to the Ventura County District Attorney's Office. The couple had been dating for just a few weeks.
In Dec. 2023, Spejcher was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in O'Melia's killing and was awaiting sentencing on Tuesday, facing a potential four-year prison term, according to the Ventura County Star.
The final ruling was delivered by Ventura County Superior Court Judge David Worley, who attributed the decision to a lack of culpability, stating that the "senseless" killing was driven by the psychotic episode and therefore "she had no control over her actions," the VC Star reported.
During the hearing, Spejcher, who turns 33 Thursday, spoke and apologized to the victim's father, Sean O'Melia, and said, "My actions have ripped your family apart ... I am broken and aching inside. I hurt that you never see Chad again."
Sean O'Melia was displeased with the verdict, stating that the judge "just gave everyone in the state of California who smokes marijuana a license to kill someone," according to the outlet.
Spejcher received a sentence of 100 hours of community service dedicated to raising awareness about the impacts of marijuana-induced psychosis. Additionally, she was given a suspended prison sentence with the possibility of jail time if she violates probation.

Woman gets no prison time for stabbing her boyfriend over 100 times

A California woman who stabbed her boyfriend over 100 times during a "cannabis-induced psychotic" episode has been sentenced to two years of probation with no prison time.

scrippsnews.com

 

[Michael Wechsler]

This decision is extremely disturbing. What kind of precedent does it set when one can claim that they didn't appreciate the potential impact of drugs? What is the difference between this and young drinkers who claim not to realize how intoxicated they may have actually been as a result of not being 'experienced' drinkers and in a peer pressure situation? Should DUI and DWI be excused as a defense for young drivers and drinkers? I'm trying to understand what took place during that trial that could possibly justify probation and no incarceration.

 

[army judge]

I'm trying to understand what took place during that trial that could possibly justify probation and no incarceration.

I suspect this was a bench trial presided over by a grandfatherly yet, kind, well intentioned soul.
It might have been one similar to a former NY state jurist, commonly referred to as "cut 'em loose Bruce".
The NYC PBA abhored the man.
Sadly he passed away during the early 2000s, about 2005.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4682253

I suspect well intentioned, but out of place.
These decisions do a great disservice to the populace and society in general, as well intentioned as these jurist might be, the message sent to others are that you can commit crimes without suffering consequences.
Such decisions only encourage other miscreants, doing little to quell serious criminality.

The decision is akin some others who believe marijuana to be harmless, like many other true homeopathic medications. All mind altering substances can and do inflict harm to those who abuse and consume such substances, which is why they should have remained outlawed. There are too many among that are too weak to control certain urges and behaviors.

 

[adjusterjack]

All mind altering substances can and do inflict harm to those who abuse and consume such substances, which is why they should have remained outlawed.

No.

The futile attempts to enforce the Volstead Act taught that prohibition bred criminal enterprise.

Legalize it, tax it, punish the abusers.

Sure, there will be a tragedy once in a while.

Drug dealers gunning down people in the streets is a lot worse.

We are losing the war on drugs while criminals are wallowing in obscene amounts of money.

 

[welkin]

I'm trying to understand what took place during that trial that could possibly justify probation and no incarceration.

I's a simple answer Michael. Liberal judges that think they can make law instead of following the rule of law. It won't stop until state and Federal courts of appeal and Supremes put a stop to it.

Color the US as a banana republic.

 

[army judge]

We are losing the war on drugs while criminals are wallowing in obscene amounts of money.

A little background might offer some context.

Amen.

In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a "War on Drugs," stating that drug abuse was "public enemy number one."

A rise in recreational drug use in the 1960s likely led to President Nixon's focus on targeting some types of substance abuse. As part of the War on Drugs initiative, Nixon increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and proposed strict measures, such as mandatory prison sentencing, for drug crimes. He also announced the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), which was headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe.

Nixon went on to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973. This agency is a special police force committed to targeting illegal drug use and smuggling in the United States.

At the start, the DEA was given 1,470 special agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Today, the agency has nearly 5,000 agents and a budget of $2.03 billion.

War on Drugs - Timeline in America, Definition & Facts | HISTORY

The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative in America that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution and trade by increasing and enforcing penalties for offenders. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today.

www.history.com

In my opinion, the began in June of 1971.
We fought that war, losing ground every year.
By June of 1981, ten years later, our nation spent billions of dollars and we had lost that war.
Heroin and cocaine abuse were increasing, as did marijuana abuse.

Tangentially, our minor conflict with tobacco and cigarettes, we were winning.
Sadly, we began losing the cigarette/nicotine war with the recent vape device appearance/acceptance (as in the 1990s).

Numerous patents for nicotine inhaler devices were filed throughout the 20th century and early 2000s by both tobacco companies and individual inventors, with a flurry of activity in the 1990s. Many relied on evaporation or physical propulsion, but a few were fairly similar to modern e-cigarettes. One chemical-reaction based system that was invented in the 1990s is still in the pipeline. Reynolds brought to market the Eclipse "heat-not-burn" device, whose functioning falls somewhere in between that of a pure nicotine inhaler and a combusted cigarette. (See also Philip Morris's Accord.) Products closely resembling modern e-cigarettes moved toward commercialization in the 1990s (example).

The History of Vaping - CASAA

A detailed history of vaping, featuring a historical timeline of events dating all the way back to the 1930s through present day.

casaa.org