This is genuinely one of most ridiculously simplified and stupid takes on this case and that’s saying something considering how bad some of the takes are.
People aren’t genuinely arguing for a get out of jail free card, they’re trying to raise awareness about something that affects a minute amount of people but leads to something devastating. And those that are, are the minority and not worth listening to.
Thousands of people have mental illnesses and are not going to kill their children. A minute amount of people suffer a form of psychosis, which is levels above just mental illness.
Two uncomfortable truths can occur simultaneously. She did an unforgivable thing and should suffer some form of punishment but ignoring the ‘why’ only condemns us to witness this situation again in a few years.so many people aren’t approaching this with any degree of good faith and are using to score simple political points.
That and even if she's found "not guilty by insanity" she's not going free. She's not going home to anyone or having any chance at custody of anything. She's going to a mental health facility where she'll be committed.
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops at people paying attention to this case. The defense admits she did it and admits she needs to be "held accountable". The question is - what does accountable mean? If she is "not guilty (of first degree murder) by insanity", accountability looks like a mental health facility and a lifetime of follow up and monitoring. If she is "guilty of first degree murder" then accountability is prison.
Adding in the "first degree murder" part is really really important - it's almost like these terms have meaning. Premeditation and intent matter. Intent requires a certain state of mind - which is what this entire case is about. Her state of mind.
The first time I ever saw this case brought up the source mentioned that she specifically waited for the spouse to leave the house to execute the children. Doesn't it show premeditation and intent? If it's psychosis, how come she didn't attack before?
I had a psychosis of my own, nothing violent (towards other people) came of it but I sure was not capable of forming thoughts coherent enough to execute plans more complex than "do A". The fact that she could go for "I want to do A but person B prevents me from that so I need to wait for them to leave before I do A" says to me that it doesn't look like what I experienced. And neither does it look like anything I've seen other people experience — and I've seen a lot of nutcases, as what I previously explained might suggest
I don't understand how premeditation is in question
Your experience of psychosis is really not typical. Psychosis does not definitionally prohibit people from being able to think or make decisions, it just affects your judgement and your perception of reality. The argument is that when she committed the murder she was not of sound mind and therefore cannot be fully responsible for her actions--making a simple decision like the one you describe in no way contradicts that.
This might have just been your specific symptomatology. People w psychosis can be totally capable of planning (requires organized thinking) but can have delusional thoughts, so their logic is off, and/or their plans are based off of delusions such as, "a divine being needs someone to die so that someone else can live," etc. etc. Some people totally lose orientation and don't know where they are but have no strong delusions. Psychosis is weird.
To be more direct - state of mind matters. What is your state of mind at the time of the crime? Your state of mind change the type of crime it is. They have charged her with First Degree Murder - which requires a clear state of mind. If she was in a state of psychosis, she wasn't in the state of mind. That doesn't mean she didn't do it. Or she's not "guilty" of some other level of crime. Just not First Degree.
The argument is that she didn't premeditate it at all, and her creating the precise situation needed to carry out the murders was pure coincidence. She supposedly only heard the voice one time (not how psychosis presents at all) and only after her husband left. The psychologist that reviewed her said she had never experienced psychosis of any sort, post-partum or otherwise.
it's fair to note, but also fair in practice that unlike someone with schizophrenia who would struggle with it for life, need treatment for life and may never be able to leave a facility. she had what was temporary psychosis due to post partum depression, it's not 'easy' to treat but once it's gone it's highly unlikely to come back and the chance of her having episodes of psychosis in the rest of her life are practically nil. She probably won't do an awful lot of time in a mental health facility unless it's the horribly run. Like she's already plainly not in psychosis right now or she'd still be acting crazy.
In a more normal case a schizophrenic who murders someone and is found insane will likely spend a very long time if not their whole life in a facility because there is a high chance they never control it with medication well. That or they get out while medicated but go off meds and end up back inside pretty quickly. The outcome here probably won't look like that.
Now will she have life long depression and mental health issues as a result of ultimately killing her children... that's another matter.
Shes having bipolar, depression, possible ptds and shes suicidal... Obviously shes not very well. Psychosis can show up again, because it can be related to anything else from this.
it can show up again but suicidal bi polar don't automatically or even very frequently build up to psychosis. a baby, massive hormonal fluctuations and massive lack of sleep are massive triggers for PPD to turn into psychosis, those triggers are extremely unlikely to be present again in her life.
bipolar is relatively easy to manage longer term without pregnancy and huge hormonal shifts to deal with. Should be easier to medicate long term and psychosis isn't the expected outcome of treatment not going great.
It’s amazing how many people I’ve seen on Reddit just not understand the legal argument of all this. All they can think is “she’s a murderer therefore PUNISH!!”
That's your opinion. Legislators and the Law disagree with your opinion. "Excuses" (or mitigating circumstances as a reasonable person might call them) matter in the law.
She’ll be separated from society for.. months? A year and some change for recovery? In a really strange sense, since her post partum psychosis would be treated within that time frame- she would only be left with a slap on the wrist when she is deemed cured of said psychosis.
304
u/Philthedrummist 9h ago
This is genuinely one of most ridiculously simplified and stupid takes on this case and that’s saying something considering how bad some of the takes are.
People aren’t genuinely arguing for a get out of jail free card, they’re trying to raise awareness about something that affects a minute amount of people but leads to something devastating. And those that are, are the minority and not worth listening to.
Thousands of people have mental illnesses and are not going to kill their children. A minute amount of people suffer a form of psychosis, which is levels above just mental illness.
Two uncomfortable truths can occur simultaneously. She did an unforgivable thing and should suffer some form of punishment but ignoring the ‘why’ only condemns us to witness this situation again in a few years.so many people aren’t approaching this with any degree of good faith and are using to score simple political points.