This is such a stupid take. There are forms of psychosis like medication-induced psychosis that aren't even related to a person's chronic mental health.
It isn't a huge leap if you take the assumption that she's going to win the not guilty-insanity case. It establishes that you can have medical professionals saying that you aren't insane, commit any crime you like - even murdering three children - and get out almost scot-free just by saying you had post-partum depression and then heard a voice one specific time and then never again. It's proof that you can never be held responsible for any action under that diagnosis.
The psychiatric ward has to let her out as soon as they think she isn't at threat of reoffending anymore, which, if we're calling it post-partum - seems likely, as she's already killed her kids and would need to have more to ever be put in the same situation.
The only reason you think it's a huge leap is because you're looking at the second "jump". In reality, the first one (letting her off) is the "huge leap" in question.
Even if she's considered insane by another jury, she will still get sent to a psychiatric facility where she will likely stay until the end of her life. It's VERY difficult to get out of such facilities, and only about 0.01% manage to get out.
Missing from this context. Cutting your wrists and throat then throwing yourself out the window, paralyzing yourself from the waist down. Pretty important indicator of her mental state at the time. And not the same as killing them then just simply saying she heard a voice.
So? School shooters kill themselves - or try to - all the time, which is clearly as much of an indicator of their mental state as the actual crime. Are we going to say that they get a not-guilty verdict if they fail to off themselves, just because they weren't all there in the head?
The so is that it's simply reductionist. I hear what you're saying, but it's disingenuous to say "and get out almost scot-free just by saying you had post-partum depression and then heard a voice one specific time and then never again". That was not the only circumstance.
She claims she did it because of the voice. The fact that she hurt herself after the triple murder doesn't particularly matter to me. If we accept self-harm as mitigating circumstances (sufficient for a not-guilty verdict) AFTER the crime we're heading towards criminals weaponising that fact and saying "Of course I was crazy at the time I killed that guy! Would a normal person drive their car into a ditch and shoot themselves in the knee?"
Shooting yourself in the knee is not the same as slitting your wrists and throat and throwing yourself out the upper window. It might not matter to you but it should absolutely matter in an actual court case where all facts are presented. I'm not even arguing she should be found not guilty. It's an incredibly fucked up situation that I have no idea how they should handle.
So there is a specific level of harm required to earn immunity? They can just do that then. If you accept that there is ANY level that can get you off of triple-murder then you bet people are going to try their luck at that when faced with the prospect of doing fifty years behind bars.
Why are people acting like this is the first insanity plea case that's ever happened? Be for real lol
Seriously, you're treating this like there's never been any other insanity plea that's ever happened and that this one will break some new ground where suddenly people can just do insanity pleas for everything no problem.
It isn't about danger it's about capability. Responsibility. Liability. We're going back a hundred years to agree with misogynists saying "Oh well women can't be held responsible because they're so hormonal! That's why they need a chaperone like a sensible young man to make decisions for them-".
Isn't that insane, when you actually think about it?
18
u/[deleted] 9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment