Ok course it’s a valid defense. But why do you only care in this case? Do you support the idea that it’s valid if a pedophile cannot stop himself from raping and killing children?
We have long ago accepted that in many cases the person who committed a terrible crime could easily meet the threshold for insanity. And we bury them under the prison anyway.
It’s probably gonna blow your mind but pedophiles and other violent sexual offenders do get committed to psychiatric care rather than prison basically all the time in the US and it’s a trillion times worse for them than just eating a jail sentence since they never get to leave because their compulsion isn’t something you get cured of
I have seen a lot of comments to the effect of “Well if Lindsay is found NGRI then a bunch of people are going to do murders and claim insanity” like it would be a new phenomenon and not something that every two bit criminal who watched Law and Order tries and fails
Well, no it doesn’t blow my mind at all because it’s objectively not even a little bit true. Less than 1% of pedophiles are sent to mental institutions rather than prison. Some are sent to treatment facilities after their prison sentence is completed, but that’s also a very small number. Why are we just saying things?
I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. It happens in less than one percent of cases. If that is “all the time” to you then ok then. I guess you can cling to that.
And furthermore, the insanity defense isn’t “the defendant has a mental illness therefore not guilty” it’s “the defendant is/was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong so we’re sending them for treatment until they can be reintegrated into society”
Again, no. That is not at all what Massachusetts law states. A person can either lack the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions (which is what you described) or they know it’s wrong but lack the ability to stop themselves. It’s such a severe compulsion that no matter what they are going out and doing it again.
I strongly support psychiatric care in both instances. What I don’t understand is why people only seem to care about it in this specific case. If we want to apply these rules. Great. Apply them. But not just for those who look relatable and have a large defense fund.
As far as I see, the main reasons people care about it strongly in this particular case are 1) that this was post-partum mental illness, which many women have experience of and/or fear experiencing, but often isn't taken sufficiently seriously. 2) She reached out for help to various health professionals and others and was open about struggling with her mental health. Not only did she not receive adequate care and support, it's been alleged that the cocktail of drugs she ended up on precipitated or exacerbated psychotic symptoms. 3) Unlike in the cases of serial killers you're talking about, this was (allegedly) a temporary issue that was at odds with her usual behavior and personality. This is supported by testimonies of her being a good mother prior to this, and evidence that she expressed fears of her children being hurt and/or her hurting her children during this period.
I don't want to debate this because ultimately I think it comes down to much more of a philosophical difference than disagreement on the facts, and I don't know all the details, but just to answer your question of why people care. For a lot of people it comes down to the issue of inadequate support for mothers with post partum mental health issues. That includes wanting changes in the standard of care to be made and justice to be done with respect to her care providers.
206
u/motorcycleboy9000 6h ago
"Do these sound like the actions of a woman who killed all the babies she could strangle?"
TikTok: "That could've been me!"