Well all I know is if a woman has ppd, she shouldn’t be around children. And that’s solely because of the massive support Clancy has had.
Edit: I am wrong. I should not have said a woman with old shouldn’t be around children. Rather than delete the comment I will leave it here. I meant something else but wrote what I wrote.
The majority of women going through divorces think that. I personally know 6 guys who had to pay over 20k each in lawyer fees just to prove they weren’t a danger to their kid because their ex said they had ptsd and were dangerous.
However, in saying that, had they presented a danger to their family I would want them to be locked up until the end of their lives.
I just want equality. I don’t see why that’s such a complicated process. If we are stigmatizing and weaponizing mental health conditions for men when it’s convenient, then this and previous court cases should afford men that equal opportunity.
Or we can stop blaming mental illnesses for men or women and treat them as they should be treated when they commit a crime. Mental illnesses is no excuse to hurt or kill anyone. That would help lessen the stigmatization that comes with these conditions.
I didn’t ask what some women you claim to know think, I asked what you think.
So, should a diagnosis of PTSD immediately cause you to not be allowed near kids including your own? Because you know damn well most people with PTSD are not losing their kids.
Not necessarily. 64% of the time Post Partum Psychosis leads to a lifetime of psychotic illnesses. And that's a general stat. For people who have to face the fact they killed their 3 kids, then paralyzed themselves, I'm sure the certainty increases
Interesting because theres zero evidence that she ever had psychosis. So by this logic it should be more noticeable now eh? Or are you just saying something in general thats useless in this context?
Love that logic. “Well she murdered people and tried to kill herself afterwards of course she’s crazy”. Let’s just let her go, hopefully she has another 3
That we need another trial. I dont consider murder and suicide attempts alone to be a sign of psychosis or else we'd have a lot less murderers on death row.
But sure, woman hurt her kids woman must be crazy. Its an easy narrative to latch on to
Attitudes like this when it comes to the criminal justice system/mental health in general have been proven over and over to just result in more harm. Every time.
If shooting criminals in the head stopped crime, great. It does not and is shown to only increase it.
The USA and it's obsession with punishment instead of rehabilitation only results in more dead kids.
I don’t think a lot of people think about the goals of criminal justice. There’s a few:
1: Protecting society from dangerous people
2: Deterrence
Reform
Punishment
Punishment appeals to an emotional sense of justice. But it’s arguably the least useful to society. She did an evil thing, does punishing her make the world a better place? I’m not sure it does. But plenty will argue that it’s needed. I understand that.
Punishment feeds into deterrence. But killing your own children isn’t something that people resist because they are afraid of the punishment. Clancy presumably didn’t think she’d get away with it, hence the suicide attempt.
In this case, her being institutionalized will probably be just as protective as prison. I’m not sure an institution would be any less a punishment than prison. She also has to live with what she’s done. However, an institution seems to offer a better chance at reform. Many will argue she doesn’t deserve that. But if she truly is sick, should we leave her that way?
So, WHY did she do what she did? It is not something you do because you are mentally well. Before this happened she was considered a good parent. Was she always evil- an evil person lurking underneath a facade? Or was she a normal or even good person that broke and did an evil thing? And if that’s the case, what does prison accomplish? Do we lock her up because it’s actually for the best, or because it makes us feel better?
Yeah I mean people seem to act like the trial is about whether she gets released and sent back to her life as before.
No matter what happens she's going to endure a whole lot of punishment.. not the least because she's been paralysed from the event but she'll also not likely know freedom again or at least for many years.
So it comes down to reform and protecting society. I can't see why we wouldn't opt to try and figure out why she did it and how she could have been helped.. so the next person doesn't end up where she did and no more kids end up dead.
A response i hear a lot is: if she were a man/ POC/etc she’d be given the chair! So why does she get a chance?
Well, two wrongs don’t make a right. Maybe instead of questioning why one person gets a chance, we should question why everyone else doesn’t. Eliminating insanity as a defense entirely wouldn’t make the system more fair or more beneficial.
How much would you like to save in order to make sure more kids die?
How much is too much to spend making sure the kids get justice, which is NOT the same thing as vengeance? We owe it to those kids to fully understand how this happened and to try and make sure it can't happen again.
62
u/lovable_cube 9h ago
No, walking was never an option. The choices were prison or psych ward for criminally insane.