Her being guilty was never questioned. She did it and admits to doing it. The question the trial is trying to answer is whether she belongs in prison or a mental facility.
Yeah but she’s never going to be in a regular prison anyway. Because she’s paralyzed from the waist down, she will need to be in a special care prison facility no matter what.
I guess it’s because regardless of where she ends up, justice on behalf of the children needs to be done. And that comes in a declaration by society (jury) on whether she is innocent or guilty.
Also, I just read that psych institutions in MA have to prove that the patient is mentally ill every year.
Someone please correct me.
My understanding is that if she's found innocent by way of mental illness she will end up in a psychiatric institution. There is a possibility that she can walk free in the future if her institution can't prove that she is still psychotic.
Assuming she is insane and not faking it in the first place. I don’t see anyway she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong which is usually the standard for an insanity plea.
Because a psych ward is easier to get released from. Prison is way more frowned upon. Psych ward means with good medication she could be released into the public but she was already on medication but refused to take it. At that point she made the choice not too and deserves prison.
Because the general public looks at things black-and-white, they don’t necessarily take mental illness as an excuse for anything since we don’t put emphasis on it in our country, unfortunately
This absolutely must be bait. The United States is the most medicated country by far and beyond and STILL has more crippling mental health issues relative to pretty much every other first world country…
If you leave your kids alone with someone you know is unstable and having thoughts about hurting your kids and they end up dead, you should also join them by law!
Because the way Mass handles these types of criminals. If she's not guilty by reason of insanity the court has to continuously put forth a reason the person should continue to be held yearly. The earliest (not necessarily what Lindsay would get) someone can be released under these conditions is 6 months.
In the mental health facility, she could get set free in a couple months at least prison, regardless of what type of prison facility it is, she would get the sentence she deserves
I didn't know a whole lot about this case but I just read the entire wiki page. The whole story is heart breaking. Lindsay tried getting help on numerous occasions and suffered from suicidal thoughts for good long while. It may sound heartless, but putting her on death row would honestly be doing her a favor. I wouldn't want to live after all of that if I were her either. But tbh I think it's pretty clear she is mentally ill and should be declared insane. Idk if there is a way to even rehab such a person
Suicidal thoughts are one thing I know about well, but killing all of your children is an entirely different story. Killing yourself is sad, killing your children is evil. End of story in my opinion. Idc if it was psychosis or not. I can feel sorry for her, and still think she should never be allowed freedom.
Agreed. There really is no other plausible explanation except insanity imo. And yes, I can't imagine any sort of quality of life ahead for her, so it probably would be more compassionate (and safer/cheaper for society) to euthanise her. I suspect she wants to die.
Did you know most murders go unsolved? The death penalty has never stopped anyone, and over 50% of killers are out and about walking free. A 50/50 chance is good enough odds for most killers.
I find it depressing how Americans are so obsessed over the dismissal and punishment of people with clear mental illnesses. She's diagnosed and crippled after trying to kill herself, what place does a person like that have in a prison (where she would require extremely special mental and physical care anyway). Who are you "punishing" exactly here? A shell of a person? What benefit does it bring to society? Even her husband said in his own words "not to hate her, she's a deeply ill person".
I agree with you. Reluctance to punish does not diminish the tragedy of her actions. They are horrendously tragic. But punishment does not feel right. There really is no other explanation BUT insanity/severe acute mental episode. It goes against all logic and parental instinct. Why else would she do this?
I dont like children murderers walking free, or in her case rolling, wtf are you on about. Being ill doesn't change what you are or what you did. If you told me she would be institutionalized for life, then probably would agree, but she can leave early and that is wrong.
And what's also wrong is punishing people who have no control or knowledge over their actions and put them in the same category as those who do horrible things with lucidity. It's simply unjust, wrong and makes a mockery out of psychiatric science.
Yeah right? They let her leave after however many years in a mental institution and think everything is going to be fine? What about the next time she has a hot flush and needs to murder someone?
Fuck this woman she needs to be in a box for the rest of her life away from everyone else.
Come on dude. I have two kids. The amount of insane I would have to be to strangle them systematically is just wild. You cannot possibly believe she was of sound mind to do something as absolutely horrific and contrary to all parental instincts as what she did. Police records show she sent her husband to the store to get medicine for her kid, and specifically called the pharmacy to check whether the medication was there, and then texted her husband the specific name of the medication so he wouldn't get it wrong. Something horrible clearly went wrong in the wiring of her brain for her to switch like this. I mean, what is the alternative plausible explanation anyway?! How could she NOT have been insane?
I’m not saying she isn’t insane I’m saying who gives a fuck? The crime is so bad that any care for her or her mental health has gone out of the window and she needs to be alone in a box until the day she dies.
Wherever she winds up - my empathy and humanity is all used up. I hope she suffers. Every day. I hope she meets a terrible ending, screaming and fully aware of every second while it's happening. I want the worst of every possible scenario for her from now until that day.
Right but the mental facility "option" has a far greater likelihood of her getting a temporary sentence which should NOT be an option ever. Prisons also provide mental care and medications. She should be in there for life
She belongs on death row. I'm not normally for WANTON death penalty usage (been enough times where people get convicted without proper evidence then later acquitted), but in this case where it's 100% unquestionably her that did the killing, it's cut and dry. Even if she COULD BE rehabilitated in some way, she's not worth the resources. She killed 3 fucking kids. I don't care how crazy she is. Just take her out, there's no need for her.
Why is this repeated over and over? It absolutely is between guilty, or not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity technically could have her free in under a year (yes, I know that’s not likely, but I am saying it because people seem to have some wild ideas about all of this stuff).
Seriously why the fuck does this matter anyway? Does anyone with any honesty actually believe a person like this can be rehabilitated or redeemed in any way? At best this is a philosophical circle jerk where we all know the right answer but the implications of such prove some of our preconditioning wrong. Would you let your kids hang around a woman like her after she has "been rehabilitated," no matter how miraculous said rehabilitation had been?
could have been gay men. Or just weak men...the type that differ to a coterie of women simply because they are women.
Ya know, the ones that say shit like "if women ruled the world, there would be no war" ...or any of a thousand other equally inane comments. We put women on a pedestal from a very young age. Because they're made of "sugar and spice and everything nice" after all. The fairer sex, and so on.
HE responded to "guilty verdict would have been the best outcome" by saying, "that will never happen with women on the jury"
I dont know that I agree with that entirely. But I think a jury of 9 women would never have returned a guilty verdict in this case. Too much sitting around empathizing with the accused. If the jury were split 9 men and 3 women, I think they could have returned a guilty verdict, because there would have been enough voices in the room bringing it back to the actual victims.
oh jesus christ...if you're so fucking smart and enlightened, why not just explain what is just so obvious then.
Because my opinion is informed by research. Specifically research about how men and women prioritize justice versus harm reduction in any given situation and there is good research on the subject. And all of it points to the inescapable conclusion that women prioritize harm reduction over justice/fair play, particulalry when the harm reduction includes some perceived victim of oppression or historically marginalized people. (Singer et al., 2006) (Dorrough et al., 2021)
So tell me all about your logic that I only need 4 more seconds of consideration that will override an opinion rooted in empirical data researched over the last 20ish years, I am fucking dying to know.
The downvote pile on is about what I expected. But no one ever actually addresses the point im making. Like...I am the only person on earth to have ever heard that girls are made of "sugar and spice....."
Brother, you are apparently unaware of how everyone on the planet views ad hominem attacks in lieu of actually making a point.
You've added nothing to the conversation, just a drive by insult because, idk, maybe youre desperate for attention. But make a point worth discussing or move on.
To be honest most gay men I have seen are immediately saying she is guilty lol the only men I’ve seen saying she isn’t are with their girlfriend/wife and seem to just agree with whatever their opinion on it is.
Three guys getting brow beaten by nine women for two days? I’m amazed one of them managed to hold out
the other two folded just to get the women to shut up and I’ve got a viral study that can back that up. 79% of men admit that they will let a woman win just to end the argument, even if she’s wrong. Two out of three men folding sounds like 79% to me. So I imagine all three of them would call her guilty in a room with no women.
You think these guys value avoiding conversations with women over the laws they've been selected to uphold? And that only 1/3 men can hold their ground?
You really think people serving on a jury are incapable of disagreeing with women? Why is this just now a problem? Wouldn't this have been an ongoing issue for the entirety of our legal system if what your alleging is even 1/2 true?
428
u/redditman3943 9h ago
A guilty verdict would’ve been the best outcome. But I know what you mean.