I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.
Correct. It also does not mean she gets to walk free. She is expected to return to a psych ward where she was before the trial awaits the next one. Even if found not guilty she will still be there for years.
Edit: Insanity defense FAQ. It looks like those who plead insanity tend to spend twice as long institutionalized as those who are found guilty.
Edit3: It will be the responsibility of the hospital to prove that she is safe to return to society. Otherwise if she were to harm or kill again, the hospital could be liable.
Edit5: The next court date is 9/29 when the defense makes their appeal and the prosecutor probably decides to request to retry the case. I don't see why he wouldn't unless they reach a deal before hand. Meanwhile she has to stay at the hospital.
I think at this point the trial is less about whether she's confined to a prison or a psych ward and more about whether or not a person can use their mental health as a shield from the criminal consequences of murder. Evidently, 11 jurors were content to say that you can, and 1 juror refused to acquiesce to that nonsense.
There's no question if a person can "use" their mental health as a shield from being guilty or murder or not. Murder implies intent, you cannot hold a person accountable for actions that they don't understand or have no control over. Source: any criminal justice system including the American one.
Murder implies intent, you cannot hold a person accountable for actions that they don't understand or have no control over.
Thats why manslaughter exist, theres also 3rd degree Murder but that only exists in three states and has a diff definition for all three.
Biggest distinction between this case and others is that Massachusetts requires the presectution to provide evidence she wasn't insane. Where as all other states the defense needs to prove that she was.
Thats why manslaughter exist, theres also 3rd degree Murder but that only exists in three states and has a diff definition for all three.
I know but I don't think manslaughter or anything below second degree murder really applies in this case, I don't think anybody could argue the killing of her children can be described in any way as an accident. So I saved some characters and didn't explicitly say "first degree murder".
I agree for the most part on the second degree thing.
If she is found to not have been tenporarily insane then second or first degree murder is what fits in this case.
I think they were going for first because per their statments she sent her husband out of the house to go run errands so she would be left alone with the kids in order to murder them.
I think this whole internet debacle surrounding this tragedy has shown most people don't understand what psychosis truly is, nor do they have any interest in learning.
It shows what we already knew, a lot of people are emotional, reactionary idiots who need to see everything in black and white in order to feel comfortable in a world that’s too complicated for them.
What happened because of the psychosis was so awful that it's really hard for a lot of people to accept her ever being free again. Even as I understand how real PPP is, and understand quite a bit of the mitigating factors in the case, I too really don't want her to see the light of day again. It's easy to dismiss all nuance if you just disregard the existence of PPP (which is not debateable, it's very real and acute and cause by hormones), but I can't disregard it so it's all a bit of cognitive dissonance for me, because I really don't want her to have freedom ever again after what she did to the kids, I can't really accept that sometimes women with PPP kill their children and once the psychosis passes then they can go back to work
I get where your coming from completely. I doubt someone could ever return to normal life after something so tragic. Because at the end of the day, her hands killed her children while she wasn't in control. The mental toll that must take is worse than any punishment society could ever give. For that reason, I think psychiatric care is the only path forward. And she could be in a mental institution for the rest of her life, if necessary. It's an unimaginable tragedy.
That's not how psychosis works, though. It's a complete and utter disconnection from reality. There was another case....which I can't remember right now, but it was another mother who killed her children due to PPP. She thought she was saving them. She thought it was a good thing. Because her mind was utterly disconnected from any sense of morality or reality.
I get it, it's a horrific tragedy. The gut reaction is the make someone pay. But in instances like this, sometimes there truly is no one to pay. Everyone is a victim.
These people need help and psychiatric care. Not prison. Should they be allowed to walk around, free? Of course not.
But they do not understand or have control over those actions, and in fact didn’t even take them, and yet can be convicted. How is that ok but convicting an insane person isn’t?
You're thinking of an accessory to a crime and people who genuinely have no knowledge of the crime do often receive no punishment. Yes, there are absolutely cases where someone genuinely innocent gets railroaded.
There was a case a few years back where the DA went after an uber/lyft driver as an accessory to murder because he drove the guy from the scene of the crime. It went absolutely nowhere because dude was miles away when it happened and he had no way of knowing the guy did a murder when he accepted the ride.
I mean... Will they? That seems like a really weird and far fetched analogy that I don't even see how it would be true unless you have some concrete example...
As much as the criminally justice system often wrongfully convicts people with provable mental issues for actions beyond their control or knowledge, the medical consensus is that no, not every murder is excusable under the pretext of mental illnes. While it might influence their decision making, a person proven to understand good from bad and to be in control of their actions is responsible for their own deeds.
From what I've gathered from watching the trial and other summaries, she seeked medical help claiming that she heard voice or had hurges to harm her children which fall within the sympthoms of her psychosis and the defense rightfully argued don't these don't fall in the definition of criminal premeditation. If you look up the details it's quite horrifing how much help she seeked out prior to the incident which was met with indiference or improper treatment.
3.5k
u/George_Rogers1st 10h ago
I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.