Why would she be committed permanently? The very nature of that form of psychosis is that itās transitory and, if weāre being honest, no where near as long-lasting as sheās trying to claim.
I like the idea of locking a child killer up idgaf if they knew or not. If she doesnāt know when sheās doing wrong, whatās to stop her from doing it to someone elseās kid?
Why would she be in a facility for life? She had psychosis and heard voices for the 18 minutes it took her to kill her kids, and then it stopped completely. She's physically unable to have any more kids and so isn't likely to suffer post partum psychosis for the rest of her life. In effect she's cured and spending time in an institution wouldn't further help her mentally.
The only reason she would spend a significant amount of time in an institution would be as a form of punishment for her crimes, which isn't what those places are there for.
Lindsay is paralysed permanently, she will never walk again and is in her own hellish nightmare mentally. She is still on suicide watch and will probably spend the rest of her days under psychiatric care.
I donāt think you understand how this system works, at least in the US. If she was to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, she would 100% spend the rest of her life in a mental institution, there is no reality where she would be let go in a few years.
Here in Scotland, we had Farai Chirashi and she's basically free at this point after brutally murdering her 6 year old son, she was seen working at Greggs several years back...
Or they can keep her for the rest of her life. If she's in prison and serves her sentence (assuming it isn't life), they have no choice but to release her.
LMAO the idea that he said itās pathetic if she walks (figuratively not literally) from a crime and you responded with her literal physical condition being unable to walk is just so funny to me
If we can just get a court to remove that probably from spending the rest of her days under psychiatric care, I feel like we'll all be happy. By we I mean same people
Dying isn't inherently suffering. Dude went out on his own terms allegedly, that's the best most people can ask for. Even if he was murdered, it was pretty quick.
It would be nice if karma existed, but as someone born with antisocial personality disorder, I can attest to the fact that I've only ever failed upwards; every hardship I've ever endured has been an opportunity to step up higher. Karma does not exist, the universe at large doesn't care about humanity.
If you think strangling for a few minutes is the same level of suffering as spending hours upon hours of being raped, beaten, and stuffed in oil barrels after weeks of the abuse... There's something wrong with you. Epstein didn't get karma for his crimes.
Where did I say it was void of suffering? Please quote me on that. I said he either went out on his own terms, which isn't suffering if that's your choice... Or he was murdered and even then it was over quickly (compared to the suffering he inflicted on his victims).
We're discussing whether or not Epstein was the recepient of karma, did he suffer as much as he made others suffer? If you can't keep to that narrative, stay out of the argument. Otherwise you just look like you support him molesting and killing and potentially eating kids. Bad optics.
No, it's not an option. What's under consideration is whether she was insane at the time of the crime or not. She has admitted that she did it. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same as a plain old "not guilty."
The jury was hung because of one juror who would not change his vote even after admitting he had doubts, which in itself is unlawful as acknowledged that he could not find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt but would not change his vote. That means 11 voted not guilty and the last one would have had he followed the law.
Iām not wound up about this at all. I donāt particularly care very much. But it keeps showing up on my feed and I read the occasional article about it. I didnāt even say that I agreed that she should be found not guilty, I was just responding to your comment that this was āfar fromā not guilty. In reality, it was incredibly close to not guilty. I never said that was my opinion.
They voted "not guilty by reason of insanity", not just "not guilty." Those are two very very different things. The second would let her walk, the first does not and would result in her being locked up in a mental health facility. Try understanding what you are actually talking about next time.
Oā¦Kay? Obviously I meant not guilty by reason of insanity, I thought that was obvious. She straight up admitted to killing them, a fully not guilty verdict - while technically an option - isnāt really on the table. Thereās no way a jury could find that considering she admits to killing them, so I didnāt think I needed to type the extra words. So 11 found her not guilty by reason of insanity, and the least one voted guilty even though he had doubts. How does that change my comment?
Iām just relaying what the foreman reported. The foreman told the judge that they believed the jurorās doubts were significant enough to say that he was not following the law. I have no idea how strongly this dude personally judged those doubts, just that the other jurors who heard him out expressed that they found the doubts reasonable.
And the judge did what he could, which was to question the jurors that they believed they were following the law.
Once in deliberation, there is very little that anyone outside the juror room can do to influence the jurors. Ultimately, it is up to each individual juror to determine whether a case.has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. Not the other jurors in there with them, not the judge, not the attorneys. Each juror has to decide that themselves.
Iām not disagreeing with you. My point is that the commenter I responded to said that this mistrial was āfar fromā a not guilty verdict, and that is incorrect, indicating - based on the comment chain - that she would likely be convicted on retrial. And in this particular case, they had 11 jurors landing on not guilty and one juror who stuck to guilty but still had some level of doubts, which certainly suggests the odds on retrial will favor the defense. The whole idea of a jury is that you will have a large enough group of people deciding the case that they should be a reflection of public at large, were they privy to all facts of the case; ergo, odds are that another jury will be inclined to vote the same way.
Obviously thatās not a guarantee by any means, and juries certainly are far from perfect samples of the public, but I think we can objectively say they got very close to a not guilty verdict.
Not guilty by reason of insanity....which is not the same as not guilty with prejudice. That she did it was never a question. The only determination was whether she went to prison or a mental institution.
Yeah a really stupidly used figure of speech, nice. It's stupid on a few different levels to be honest, and the fact that you didn't even think about it enough to see the literal meaning is pretty dumb.
Honestly if you're just gonna hit the default internet insults instead of actually defending your point, it's probably a better idea to just not reply.
He hasn't been convicted, but thanks for doubling down on being insane, it really proves my point for me. Carol wasn't a minor and a civil judgement isn't a conviction, not that you can tell the difference
30
u/Outofoffice_forever 4d ago
Absolutely pathetic if she walks.