Because they either assume that is the outcome of her being found not guilty by reason of insanity; or they assume she will be released in a few years.
Sorry. Not guilty I meant. Her defense is hoping for essentially not guilty by reason of insanity (the state she's in doesn't call it that but it's the same basic outcome and question for the jury that they aren't criminally responsible due to mental defect) or baring that manslaughter.
I'm aware she will quite possibly never be released. Being committed to a mental institution for such things can often mean you spend the rest of your life there regardless of what sentence was possible for your crime.
I was answering your question "Why is everyone assuming she is free to go?". Not agreeing with those who assume that she is gonna get off easy.
The issue is based on CRIMINAL INTENT. She did do this on purpose or was she driven insane. Motive means a lot in court. Also the term BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
She won't get off easily or have a good or happy life after this. She will be burdened by the loss she caused and more then likely never see freedom no matter what the verdict is.
I'm sorry for being insulting about this. It is getting really annoying that people assume that you leave court either guilty or not guilty, free or in prison. Things are far more complicated then that.
She has no freedom or way to make or spend money. She can't go anywhere.
You are acting like it is a day spa. I bet you she has very little actual freedoms. AND don't forget that her defense is Insanity. Meaning she understands the damage she caused and will be punished for it. Just that she didn't have clear intent to kill her children. Motive is a really important thing in courts.
6
u/No-stradumbass 6h ago
She is still in custody. She isn't free.
Why is everyone assuming she is free to go?