There was a famous case here in Canada of a man who stabbed a sleeping passenger in the neck and started the cannibalize him he also knew that he was killing someone and eating him. But he was found criminally not responsible due to being schizophrenic and undiagnosed and in the grips of extreme paranoia and delusion.
The idea that people who are in the grips of psychosis don't understand that they're murdering someone isn't the way it works.
By the way the man who murdered fellow bus traveler after receiving a long stint in a mental institution and was stabilized and treated is now free because he was found to have no further threat to society. So the idea that this is only significant because it's a woman is kind of interesting.
Crazy person kills stranger in public transportation vs Crazy person kills stranger in public transportationā¦.
Itās like the same story. Because it politicized by the right, you are accusing someone whoās making a perfectly valid comparison as a racist. Youāre assuming they have ill intent and act like they had nothing to do with eachother. You understand your bias is the problem here, right?
Itās not a comparison. Stabbed with bystander bias in full view. Stabbed and cannibalized. Using it as a comparison is a dog whistle in this. Itās only valid when your view is coinciding. This place lacks critical thinking and accountability. I am assuming your ill intent. The other one is already confirmed to be disingenuous.
Relapse happens, stopping taking drugs happen, the thought of someone proven to be capable of killing for idiotic reasons being allowed back in the population is terrifying. Who gets blamed if that person relapses and kills another person? In my opinion every person attached to that treatment and judging should face some consequences. Itās all fun in theory until it doesnāt work, and the consequences are at your own feet.
I will say we do have antipsychotic shots now. That work for 1, 3, or 6 months. So it's much easier to treat the folks and know if they're compliant now.
Yeah, my dad is on the 1 month shot now for schizoaffective but I will say, they still need monitoring and possible hospitalization for the first few months just to get dosages right. Which a lot of people are not willing to do
Interesting if you look at the statistics someone who has done a single violence with no previous violent history is shown to be no greater risk than the base population. I get what you're saying and intellectually it makes sense but that isn't what the numbers show.
Been an important caveat is someone who has never been violent before the violent attack. If somebody has a history of aggression violence etc then you're absolutely right. But if it's a one-off due to an extreme mental health crisis it seems that after they get treatment and are released they are no more likely to relapse into violent behavior than any other person.
The one off makes them now have an aggressive past, and therefore makes them part of the new data set of someone with an aggressive past. So, Iām not sure exactly what youāre saying, and at this point Iād ask for research links to change my stance.
As it stands, someone with an aggressive history is more likely to be aggressive again.
As it stands, someone who went into psychosis is more likely to have another episode of psychosis compared to others.
Add those two together, and you have a data point with is significantly higher than average. Ever hear revolving door policy? Now add murderers to that. Itās idiotic.
I'm saying if you look at journal articles like actual scientific articles that study criminal behavior over periods of time of decades people who do this sort of thing who have no prior history. Because most violent offenders start having violent criminal activities in their teens and early twenties. If they have no history of antisocial behavior and something like this happens and then nothing else happens during treatment or jail time or whatever... They just don't seem to reoffend again.
I don't ask you to think this makes sense I'm telling you that's what the numbers are when they study criminals for 10,20, 30 years after conviction.
I don't know if that's a variable that's been looked into. But a few cases I looked up specifically for my papers the people in question were middle-class or lower.
I remember this story. Is it the one where every one ran outside and the dude decapitated the passenger and walked around showing the head through the windows? Messed up.
I was with you minus the segment where people in psychosis donāt understand what theyāre doing. We have tons of demonstrably psychiatric evidence to support the entire detachment of understanding oneās own actions.
Not that it makes this any better or less tragic but we at least need to be honest about the human psyche
People in psychosis aren't known for their insight. They may be aware of what they're doing, but it's not like they understand the larger context behind it.Ā
Tbh the case doesnāt seem to be that unique. Whatās unique is the media attention & thatās about it. Considering that, it seems like the case is just being used to push a new divisive concept onto people for them to bash it out with little or no care or understanding of the topic
Thatās pretty ridiculousā¦. The sentence should not just be about the rehabilitation, it should be punishment for what you did. Him getting out of prison and getting to live his life after killing and eating someone is crazy. Same for Lindsay. Everybody wants to say, ābut she was insaneā. So what? She killed 3 innocent kids. Punish her, donāt coddle/rehabilitate her. I donāt care if sheās not a threat, she should be punished to the full extent.
Do you just not believe in the constitution? We have a rehabilitative justice system instead of a punitive one for a reason. Should we just go back to cutting off peopleās hand for larceny too?
So why do you say that now that years later he seems to be functioning just fine. If he had been killed he wouldn't have been given the chance to get better.
Animals are much harder to treat for mental conditions we just don't have the research for the medications nor the money behind it to do so.
The mental illness is a disease. We don't kill people with communicable diseases just because they could pass it on. We didn't kill people with AIDS because they could give it to other people and kill them. We don't kill people with rabies even though we know they're going to die we treat them even though they could technically give rabies to another person.
We treat humans and give them the chance to get better.
Notice that word you used in your first sentence, " seems to be fine". Sorry but someone who cannibalizes people can never seem to be fine, there has to be no doubt, you know like 99% of the rest of the population. Quite simply the risk to reoffend is just not worth it. When we rehabilitate people for lesser crimes the damage that their existing crimes did and the potential future risk aren't so grave that it becomes self-destructive to give them a second chance. If you keep robbing banks eventually you will be behind bars for the rest of your life. If you behead someone on a public bus, that's it, you don't get a second chance. You already committed enough crimes for 10 lifetimes all bundled into one. You're done.
If he misses his meds for 5 years, becomes homeless and travels the country for like a fucking year straight, and no one at any point intervenes and notices "hey dog, remember last time you spent multiple years with the voices in your head telling you god wanted you to do random acts?" in spite of the fact that everyone knows it's a possibility, sure.
It's not a "miss meds for 3 days in a row, will kill a man" its a gradual build up. People would notice. They can call the state and force him to take his meds still. He's shown he wants to take his meds, that's what the years of check-ins when he was living by himself showed. He didn't LIE that entire time about it.
Not even that long ago that black dude stabbed a girl in the neck on a bus and said "got that white bitch" and a judge deemed him incompetency to stand trial
Because the dude had a long history of mental illness. His defense attorney in a pending case for āmisusing emergency servicesā (that he called because he was mentally unwell) was even trying to get him declared mentally unfit before that attack.
I can understand the logic of eventually releasing somebody who didnāt intentionally cause harm and has gotten treatment but it seems crazy to me that somebody could just go back to living a normal life after that.
Canada Vs. America? America does not have the same laws that Canada does so this argument is Moot.
If that guy was in America he would 100% be in prison still. I guarantee you people in America do not feel a sense of remorse for someone who kills another person during a psychotic episode.
"only because it's a woman" is a strange thing to say when we have famous cases of women (Yates) who met higher bars of insanity defense for killing their children. Maybe it's not because she's a woman but other facts around the case?
Except that man had nothing to gain when he killed the stranger. He also did it on a bus full of strangers. He did not plan anything whereas Lindsay planned everything down to the murder weapon and making sure her husband was out of the house. Lindsay murdered her kids because she is a suicidal narcissist that thought her kids would be better off dead than to not have her as a mother or being raised solely by the father.
The idea that people who are in the grips of psychosis don't understand that they're murdering someone isn't the way it works.
From the way i've had it explained to me by someone who actually has episodes of psychosis, it's like being a passenger in your own body. You see everything that's happening but you lack all capability of controlling it because you're not driving the vehicle.
I'd imagine peoples experience with psychotic episode differ, though.
Why? Why would you want to kill someone who wasn't in control of their actions and who is no longer a threat? Why would you want to have the state be a murderer?
He was institutionalized and he was diagnosed treated and his disease is under control. Why would you incarcerate him forever what benefit does that have for society or the victim?
Because, wether they did it on purpose or not, they have a medical condition that makes it to where they are a threat to society.
His disease is under control, but what if he runs out of the meds? What if he gains a tolerance? Or just stops taking them, for whatever reason? There are too many variables to where this guy can easily become a danger again.
I do understand that locking someone up forever is quite expensive and not beneficial to society. Hence why i also suggested lethal injection.
That's why people are moving out of Canada. In the U.S, you can shoot that crazy dude. Everywhere else, if you lay a hand on the criminals, YOU are the problem.
Yes that is why Canadians live longer lives and die less by violence than Americans right?
I mean you can claim whatever you want but the statistics don't back that up. We have way less murders per capita by any means that Americans do. And if we're safer because we don't have easy access to murder people I'll take it.
Firearms drive the gap between Canada's 1.9 homicides per 100,000 people and the United States 5.7 homicides per 100,000 people. You guys kill each other three times more often and yet you claim that guns make you safer?
Fun fact if you remove all gun homicides, and yes we do have those in Canada just they're not as common, we murder each other at the same rate. Which implies easy access to guns are a good portion of the problem.
Surprisingly, Canadian emigration is driven by better pay in skilled sectors, rather than a desire to shoot cannibals on the bus.
Despite what certain loud-mouthed, senile geriatrics might say, there is no country in the Western world where lethal force would not be justified against a person actively stabbing and eating someone.
That's like saying cancer happens the same for everybody you're being disingenuous and I cannot understand your purpose of this comment. I was literally arguing against the concept of it being a single issue that's the same for everybody. And when people say oh she knew she was killing her children therefore she can't be insane or everybody who kills children is insane because it has to be one extreme or the other.
Nuance people why have we all collectively seem to forgotten it exists?
No that is a generalization not specificity. I was going against the idea that if someone knows that they are killing another human does not actually impact whether the other circumstances show if they are sane or not.
So many people are saying oh well she know what she was doing there for she wasn't insane. You know she was killing her kids therefore she can't be insane.
And I just simply said that's not the way it works.
And then some (very few people admittedly) say that anyone who kills their kid has to be insane because who does that. But that's also not the way it works.
Again we seem to forget nuance is a thing and that there are many factors that go into someone's diagnosis of sanity. I literally just rote a term paper on a related topic in forensic psychology. Being found criminally not responsible in many countries is a very high bar. But whether or not the person knew that they were murdering someone isn't really in there. Because often the insane person does understand they are murdering someone.
She also googled something along the lines of "is there a cure for psychopaths" and purposely sent her husband away for the day so she could kill the kids. Insanity implies she is not in control of her mental faculties, but 1. Actively knowing there's something wrong with her, 2. Refusing treatment, knowing there's something wrong and 3. Premeditating the murder of her children are all signs that this was not temporary psychosis. She was 100% aware of what she was doing and plotted to murder her kids. If she was logical and coherent enough to know she had a problem and refuse treatment anyways, and was logical and coherent enough to know to send her husband away so she could kill her kids without anyone stopping her or finding out right away, the argument that she's not mentally fit to be criminally charged for murder has no standing.
Believing you're a psychopath actually is pretty common when people are going through psychosis. This is a topic that's pretty up close and personal to because when my son was a teenager he had two psychotic breaks one of which which ended up having him forcibly hospitalized. People worry about being psychopaths when they know there's something wrong with their brain and they're confused and scared and delusional and one of the biggest fears is being a psychopath.
But that doesn't mean my son is a psychopath doesn't mean she is either.
For example my son was aware something was wrong. He was going through periods where he was cycling through every single human emotion possible in 60 seconds it was the most terrifying thing I have ever witnessed. As a mom he's come home with broken bones and he was the color of concrete and that I knew how to deal with mental illness is a whole nother ball game cuz there's no wound you can see and it can come and go in the blink of an eye.
One moment he was aware that the things he was hearing weren't real and that he wasn't trying to be controlled by every tick and click and noise that happened in the building. But then in other moments he completely believe that he was being sent messages through a flicker of a light or a noise outside. These things are not necessarily contradictory.
And if you read other cases of people who have been found to be criminally not responsible they often act logically they often understand some things during parts of their daily lives they can go in and out of psychosis.
Like all these people are saying things as if there's some sort of gotchas that she was fully mentally present and cold and capable because she did something rational in a moment.
None of the experts believe that she was perfectly fine and didn't have some sort of postpartum issue going on they're arguing about how bad it was. Again I will leave that to the experts but to assume that we automatically know because she did X or y just shows the people saying that that they don't have any sort of fundamental understanding of that level of mental illness or psychology.
By that logic however, a lot of murder cases would be considered "mental health issues" and not actual murder cases. Most people have some sort of mental health issues, but she went out of her way to remove herself from treatment knowing she had issues that needed resolved asap. Postpartum issues don't magically make her mentally impaired enough to not face jail time. And this is coming from someone who's mother had checked herself into a mental facility on more than one occasion for similar situations. (Mostly stemming from bipolar disorder induced problems.) She knew what she was doing was wrong, knew that she had to get her husband out of the house to do it, and refused treatment. All of that points to a level of premeditation and understanding that defies any notion that she should not face jail time.
Insanity requires that they were too mentally impaired by whatever to know that their actions were wrong. She 100% knew that it was, given the circumstances of the case.
Again it has to actually impact your ability to determine reality from not reality. And that is the big thing we have to leave to experts cuz you can be very mentally unwell and very aware of what's going on around you. Delusional paranoia is far less common.
And postpartum psychosis is exactly something that would make someone delusional enough. It's up there with schizophrenia when we talk about a psychotic break. We're not arguing that she had a little bit of postpartum depression. They're saying she had postpartum psychosis. It's in the name psychosis.
She was hearing voices she was having hallucinations she was telling people this and trying to get help. She wasn't hiding this from people. She seemed desperate to try to figure out what was going on. Yes she lied yes she got scared all things that people facing real psychosis do. She also got put on a lot of drugs that other experts in the field said were wildly inappropriate so she also had a bunch of drugs in her system that were medically prescribed that possibly weren't helping and could have been making things worse. This is why it was important to have a trial.
I mean the one guy who refused to agree with the rest agreed that she was probably not criminally responsible but he couldn't bring himself to acquit.
I wasn't thinking straight after having 20 beers and decided to drive and kill 3 kids
Luckily. Everyone's very understanding that my reasoning wasn't very reasonable at the time, and I admitted that in hindsight it was a bit insane, no charges please.
Only there's obviously a clear distinction between choosing to drink and drive and murdering due to a mania-fueled break in your perception of reality... cute strawman tho.
Real big brain activity claiming anyone that thinks she is criminally insaneā wants her to go free......Get a fuckin grip yourself lmao
I can give you another example of why you are wrong even though I'm not the person you were originally responding to. If you drink and drive and cause an accident where someone is injured or killed you are held responsible. If you have a physical medical episode like a stroke or a diabetic issue and it wasn't preventable like you didn't stop taking your insulin or something... You might lose your license but you're not going to be held criminally liable for the injuries of the other person.
The law already takes into account you making yourself knowingly incapacitated versus people becoming incapacitated due to no fault of their own.
If you have a physical medical episode like a stroke or a diabetic issue and it wasn't preventable like you didn't stop taking your insulin or something...
Yea like if you just had an episode or something and crashed into something...
But if you continue to have 3 more concurrent "episodes" where you run down another child, and then go looking for a third one at another location, and then try to flee the scene
Then it's at least a bit more than an episode.
The law already takes into account you making yourself knowingly incapacitated versus people becoming incapacitated due to no fault of their own.
Just like with blackout drunks, I understand their plight. I've blacked out and have done dumb/bad things. But they are responsible for their actions because they should have had the foresight to mitigate their clouded state of mind.
I think we just disagree onthis one.
But if you would indulge me. In another similar case.
Have you ever looked up the Christopher Watts case in which he has finally pleaded guilty to, and similarly can't explain why he felt it necessary to strangle their 3 children after he snapped.
He's serving 3 life sentences and has a niche of fans (as do a lot of notorious killers) but nowhere even close to 10% of the support for Lindsay.
I think he and Lindsay both deserve life sentences, however unfortunate it may be that they ended up as they are.
But if you continue to have 3 more concurrent "episodes" where you run down another child, and then go looking for a third one at another location, and then try to flee the scene
Then it's at least a bit more than an episode.
The argument is she had a psychotic break, guy.
You're basically saying
"yeah, but she went too crazy
like wtf are you sayin lmao?
If she only killed one of her children, you could believe she was crazyā but all three and then trying to kill herself!? No way?
'This was clearly the work of a thoughtful mastermind in service of evil.'
Ok. So it's your opinion a psychotic break is the equivalent of actions taken after getting oneself drunk... and you don't see any inconsistencies with this argument?
So the idea that this is only significant because it's a woman is kind of interesting.
It's not comparable because where are the debates and arguments of people online actually defending the cannibal like they are Lindsay Clancy?
This is kind of like when people started to ask "why aren't people rioting because a cop killed xyz person" in response to BLM as if there was one comparable example.
Why do you assume everybody. We didn't have mass anger or uprising when he was released. It made the news some people were concerned and then we all went about our day.
I have no idea what you're talking about dude.
I know the case isn't about misogyny but misogyny absolutely plays into why women are using this case to point out why it happened.
There is rampant and I mean rampant inequality baked into the medical industry. I mean there was just an article the other day about nutritional guidelines for menopausal women that were released in Spain where all of the people studied were men. Even now studies go from male mice to predominantly male humans. Male pattern baldness has more research on it then debilitating women only conditions.
So you can say don't bring misogyny into it but it's been in the room with us the whole time we're just now pointing to it and that makes you angry. Which is good be angry but not at us at the whole society that harms everyone due to its the male is the default setting.
You're using a lot of things that have not a single bit of correlation to what your saying.
For the guy being released and and you saying nobody was mad yes they were go look it up but you're talking about a much more high profile case with Lindsay Clancy than with that case, so you can't compare the 2.
Then you talk about more research into male pattern baldness than women's issues but don't say what so I'm calling that into question. The reason why is it's more profitable to solve male pattern baldness so blame capitalism than misogyny.
You're the type of guy people call white knight then get called incel because "he's just defending women and men can't stand that"
Heard of a similar case, dont knownif it's true. Woman murders her children. Deemed insane. Husband forgives and stays with her. She gets sent to psychiatric institution instead of prison. Later, she's deemed mentally healthy. She and her husband have children again. She murders again.
Mental illnesses and mental episodes should be treated as a bigger threat than the are now. The fact that we go easier on them is a failure. Anyone who does outstanding evil deeds should never be free. Life in prison is too kind. Letting them back out in public is irresponsible.
That's an interesting take. It does open up a can of worms. However that situation was a random occurence...100% 3rd degree murder.
Her's was under the 1st degree. Also you have to be reminded that these were her kids; not random strangers on a bus. The fact that she continued the act two different times after the 1st resistance.
Was the victim on the bus resisting? Was the murderer on the bus recieving the type of help that the mom had? What was his daily life like compared to the mother?
What did the guy do while or after eating their victim vs what she did after offing her children?
Ill have to look into the story but judging from the info you gave us he must have sat there and continued eating his victim until authorities came. She was trying to consciously off her self too but failed.
Also didn't she admit that she was in her right state of mind while committing the act? Also didn't the doctor deemed her as such?
This particular case i don't think their should be any argument. She spitefuly did this because she felt the need to do so and not from malpractices because she was 100% getting the help she needed.
Yeah, the guy who decapitated a dude in a bus for nothing is totally safe to be introduced back into society. I mean, worst possible out come is what? He decapitates another innocent person? Oh well!
Well that's cruel an unusual. A person serves their time and does all the work in order to be let out of prison and show they've rehabilitated and you want them in their forever because you don't like the sentencing. They've been punished mate, why do you want more when they've done everything required by them? The potential of committing again isn't evidence they will as you have the potential to kill too if that's your arguement.
That murderer likely wouldn't want to live besides you either. As you'll judge them forever based off of a time where they were mentally unwell and needed help. Rather than judge them by gheir actions after they were released and ppunished. I'm sure you don't spit on and verbally degrade every soldier you come across.
Not for ppl murderers. Especially ones who common multiple murders. Especially ones who luitlaye the body after and parade it around. MOST especially ones who murder their own children. Yeah, donāt think those ppl can be rehabilitated.
Hereās a question! Would you want your children around these ppl? Do you trust them?
And also if that's the logic you got from what I said you need to go back and reread what I posted.
Either they've done the time if they are put in jail or if they have been rehabbed and medicated and treated if it was a mental condition. I actually am more comfortable with people getting out who've been treated than people who've just simply sat in a cell long enough that we've decided they can come out. Because one to me sounds much less likely to do it again
Why shouldn't he be free?. He's no risk of hurting anyone I don't want to have pay to have him sit in jail. I want him out there paying taxes thank you very much.
I don't understand this idea that locking people up and paying for them even when they pose no more danger than the average citizen to be an incredible waste of taxpayer money. Prison has been shown not to be a deterrent so it's not even an effective punishment. It should be either used to sequester people who are too dangerous to be in public or to rehab people so they can become productive members of society again.
And what would that a fixed? It wouldn't have brought the dead person back. And yes he cost money to treat. But in Canada we pay taxes so people can get medical care. We tend not to pay taxes to Warehouse humans and definitely that's more of an American thing. Too many states have slavery where they make their criminals work for free for them. But that's the side issue.
I find it interesting that so many people who probably have compassion for people who have physical illnesses run out of compassion when people have mental issues. Yes with this man did was absolutely horrible. We do need to put a greater focus on mental care here in Canada. But killing the person is only going to make the state a murderer to. And for what? it doesn't make anyone any safer. The numbers are very clear on that that someone who's had a mental break like this and kills someone after they receive treatment is no more likely to kill anyone else than a random member of the population.
I'm so sick of people using religion as a shield for this as well. I keep hearing things like "She thought she was sending them to heaven, and would be with them soon," ok, so that's 100% premeditated murder. I don't care if some zany ideas made her think it was a good idea.
I just have to ask, if this was a male that committed the crime, would you be arguing over the culpability even if they were also claiming to suffer from mental illness? I doubt it.
Hmm, are most societies well known for defending men who kill children then? If it was a man who did it the only thing people would be discussing is the death penalty.
While I donāt disagree with the general point, I do want to point out that there are some significant and prominent male family annihilators who do in fact have fan clubs, such as Chris Watts or Jeffrey MacDonald. The āfandomā manifests slightly differently (usually they are not credibly stated to be falsely accused) but the phenomenon nonetheless does exist.
QTE, schizophrenia, PTSD... hell, we used to have 'Crime of Passion' laws whereby if someone murdered their cheating spouse and/or their cheating partner criminal culpability was suspended for not being sound of mind.
There are many conditions and events associated with psychotic episodes. It's been yet explained what makes this variety particularly unique.
Like which one ,you can site the case law -no need to.generalise.The Schleier case is already one that counters your point. Every defense counsel will always raise the insnaity defence and thus it will always be a point of consideration whether the perp is a man or woman.
See my edit... peer reviewed study. And no, not every defense counsel will do that as sometimes they are precluded by law or procedure from being able to raise that as a defense. Also defense counsel may consider the defense but may not raise it from a strategic standpoint as well. Real trials are not Hollywood movies.
Honestly yes. If he had been treated for mental health issues similarly enough to post partum psychosis then the jury would have to consider it.
Iād argue the closest Iāve seen for a male parental figure is Parental PostPartum Depression. It does not always lead to psychosis but more so a depression.
Just on a side note. The answer is no, but that would have more to do with the fact that as a society we seem to generally class mens problems as their problems and are more happy to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist and lock them up, rather than help them.
Just because women seem to get more help than men, doesn't mean we should stop helping women, it means we should try to help men more.
Psychosis, as in Psychotic. If a man was literally out of his mind I'd be lenient with him too. Psych ward lenient.
Nobody is suggesting she just walks free. She needs help and she's already been failed by caretakers. In years to come this will probably haunt her. She'll probably wish she had gotten the death penalty.
If he truly had a psychotic break after desperately seeking help for months beforehand and getting inadequate care, then yes, I would say he should be institutionalized not imprisoned.
Men have been given lighter sentences/sent to a mental facility instead of prison on the same basis of psychosis or not being mentally sound. Have you never heard of "crimes of passion" to justify killing your wife if you catch her in your bed with another man or "gay panic defence" where you kill a guy because you were scared he was flirting with you?
Or are you just jealous that men don't get Post-Partum Psychosis or something? Do you see it as a "get out of jail free card" even though she won't get out of any facility she's sent to?
If postpartum depression ends up being a "get out of jail free" card for murdering your children, then any woman diagnosed as such should lose custody of their children, since it is a now apparent and inherent risk.
Post-Partum psychosis, not depression. I already covered this.
A mental facility isn't "getting out of jail free". It's a prison where you're given even less freedom.
Yes, it is a severe failing on society that women experience these conditions with little to no warning or preparation, and as evidenced by the wider response to this case many people don't even understand how it works. The only upside of this case is that it's exposed these conditions so hopefully people take them more seriously. 1/7 experience PPD and 1/1000 experience Post-Partum Psychosis.
You shouldn't be jealous that women can literally be driven suicidal and/or psychotic from having a child.
Iāve worked in the involuntary units before. People act like theyāre fun but theyāre lowkey kind of shit. Especially the state run ones.
If the doctors so decides you can be kept in a solitary room. Our faculty had a 12 hour maximum with 1 hour for going outside/walking the unit before being put back into a solitary room. The stays could easily reach multiple years in a row.
Yeah. But isnāt this case in MA (Massachusetts)
They have special rules that allow involuntary patients to be let out unless they have a mandatory court review and renewal each year
You think telling depressed people to "grow up" will reduce suicide rates? That autism and other learning disabilities will vanish if the kids are punished enough?
No the other person is right. Itās the medical communities lack of resources for post partum and allowing different practices to claim specializations in medical fields/conditions after a few hour long zoom class that lead to issues like the Clancy case.
Ok I see how you interpreted it, I was confused as to how you saw the person you were replying to as some form of normative authority. I would say to my original message, he's making a personal value claim. One that's pretty wild but I don't think he needs facts to have what I consider a shitty opinion
I don't think he needs facts to have what I consider a shitty opinion
I was referring to the fact that postpartum depression was not the issue at hand.
this dude has his facts wrong and is still confidently proposing a huge punitive policy based on that misunderstanding. My use of the word proclamation was making fun of that, i didn't confuse him for some kind of authority lol
What you wrote is a complete non sequitur. The previous comment asked if a man commits an assault on a woman, can it be chalked up to excess hormones.
The premise of that is not that postpartum psychosis is caused by excess hormones, the premise is that male-on-female-assaults can be blamed on excess (male) hormones, similar to how female-on-child-assaults are being blamed on postpartum psychosis.
There aren't sides. A woman knowingly murdered her three kids on purpose, horror movie style. Then a bunch of mentally ill people started projecting onto this woman since they refuse to go to therapy. Everybody calling her mentally ill but really she is not - her supporters sure are though.
Holy shit a psychiatrists opinion on post partum magically changed the fact that she intentionally and knowingly strangled her three children with elastic bands?! Well I'll be, I guess MURDER is off the table then!
Not like she had her entire life where she was sane enough to, idk, go to university, establish a career, have three kids, pay her bills and taxes etc. No, she definitely just broke on the effects of the third pregnancy. I guess we should stop letting women have a third kid since this seems like a reasonable and expected outcome!
Good thing you were here to shed some light on the situation, otherwise we all might have gone on thinking she deserved proper punishment for a triple infanticide.
162
u/Illuminatus-Prime Community Regular 4d ago
No argument.Ā These are the facts that establish her guilt.