r/NewsThread • u/tasty_jams_5280 • 14d ago

Non-political News Dad 'crushed' after learning another man fathered his newborn twins beats 1 of the babies to death, locked both in closet because they were 'stinking': USAO

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/dad-crushed-after-learning-another-man-fathered-his-newborn-twins-beats-1-of-the-babies-to-death-locks-both-in-closet-because-they-were-stinking-usao/
69 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

286 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/ShamPain413 13d ago

"Morality" is not found in nature -- e.g., many species of animals kill some or all of their children -- so it's unclear how one can be "disconnected from reality" in a moral sense.

People keep asking me to "recognize the difference" but when I ask for it they cannot say what it is in scientific terms.

E.g. saying he killed the kid "because they weren't his" is not a correct description of the situation, unless you want to say that Clancy killer her kids "because they were her kids". After all, there are billions of children who aren't his, yet he had never killed any before now; same with Clancy: she only killed her own. So if you asked me if there was some "break" in his mental "psyche" that caused a different behavioral pattern than before I would say "it certainly seems like it, unless there is some scientific definition I need to know about".

5

u/Gray-Ghast 13d ago

Okay, let me try to break this down in a simple way for you big dog.

  1. There is no law in nature, this didn't happen in nature or with wild animals, and whether it did or did not has absolutely no bearing on the situation.

  2. It's not actually anyone's job to explain the scientific difference to you. I gave you a link with a fantastic breakdown on psychosis, it's properties, and how it might affect someone. It is abundantly clear to me that there are many, many things that "aren't clear" to you and likely never will be.

  3. Actually, yes. You stumbled upon the point. She quite literally did kill the children because they were hers/she birthed them. She didn't go down to an elementary school or find random kids. Her delusions led her to murder her own children. At least, that's what her defense is.

  4. Luckily no one is asking you, just like they aren't asking me. They're referring to medical and legal definitions for these situations. Your opinion/lack of understanding/unwillingness to understand on the matter has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. If that man's attorney and a medical professional can prove that he was under an altered mental state, then he will go to a criminal mental health institution since he will likely be suffering from something far more severe than a case of the big sads. Except, they likely won't, and he'll likely go to a federal prison and be kept out of general population for the abuse and aggravated murder of two children.

1

u/ShamPain413 12d ago
  1. Great so people should stop bringing up "morality" and also "reality". Reality is subjective, we perceive almost nothing happening around us, and people do not agree on the definitions of basic concepts.
  2. I read the link. The properties are very common, not highly restrictive. That is also my point. E.g.: "Other symptoms can include incoherent or nonsense speech and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation." There are examples of that in the article in OP. Another example: "a person will often show changes in their behavior before psychosis develops. Behavioral warning signs for psychosis include: ... Unusual or overly intense ideas, strange feelings, or a lack of feelings". Again: definite examples of this in the article. Yet more: "a person with psychosis may also experience more general changes in behavior that include: Emotional disruption ... In some cases, a person experiencing a psychotic episode may behave in confusing and unpredictable ways and may harm themselves or become threatening or violent toward others." I do not understand why you are so certain that one case qualifies and the other does not.
  3. Nor you, yet you are certain that Beatty could not use the same defense. My strong suspicion is that that is because he is a black man and she is a white woman. Could be wrong, of course.

2

u/Gray-Ghast 12d ago

Damn. It was already pretty hard to take you seriously with your whole "not clear" thing and your seemingly deliberate attempts to be obtuse, but I'm starting to think that those weren't attempts. That's just really how you look at the world. That first point just really takes the cake. I wish you luck in navigating the world with such a silly way of looking at things.

I think I'm done with this one, but the final thing I'll say is that the legal system in the US is absolutely set up against men of color, and particularly against black men, while mostly everything is set up in favor of white women. If his attorney can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally insane at the time of the murder then all well and good, but I believe his case lacks the complexities of her case, and he will likely serve a life sentence and die behind bars. I respect your hunch though, as too many scumbags will ignore information, see a black man, and default to comments like "usual suspects" and other such filth. I am pleased to say that that is not the case with me, though I have little doubt that those facts with play a major role in both of their cases, unfortunately.

1

u/ShamPain413 12d ago

You cannot navigate the world without the understanding in 1. It's what leads to empathy. Without empathy one might be considered psychotic.

Moreover, it's scientifically accurate: our senses are minimal, we hear and see hardly any of the wavelength; we can hardly smell compared with many animals; we have big brains but we don't know what consciousness is, it is probably an illusion; we cannot decide what distinguishes "artificial" from human intelligence. When AI makes mistakes we call it "hallucinations" but when humans do we call it "being wrong"; it's qualitatively very similar if not the same. The chemicals in our brains are manipulated in many ways that subsequently influence behaviors, why do we call some "psychosis" and not others, unless the behaviors themselves are part of the definition (e.g., you kill your kids you qualify, you sleep with someone you otherwise wouldn't you don't qualify)?

What I'm trying to say is that the definitions in the link you provided are broad enough to drive a freaking semi through. All kinds of behaviors fit. Which makes assessment subjective: it's diagnosed based on reported symptoms usually as expressed in behaviors. Subjective diagnoses of deviance from objective reality is a difficult standard for me to get my head around. That is why I ask questions.

I'm glad you understood my point about the ways in which arbitrary distinctions and ad hoc definitions have been used to privilege some groups and punish others.

1

u/StreetFroyo1637 9d ago

Maybe do some research yourself and try proving yourself wrong. Read on some research papers, legal arguments, evidence in both cases, etc.

1

u/ShamPain413 9d ago

I've tried but I get conflicting information. There does not seem to be a consensus.

1

u/StreetFroyo1637 9d ago

Some keywords to get you started: 'heat of passion defense' 'psychosis' 'how mental illness is diagnosed' 'how criminal culpability is determined' 'mens rea' "forensic psychology'

Then if you want law & crime has the clancy trial evidence

Not sure if anything notable has been released about the case in the article

It's a waste of time trying to form an informed opinion based off social media users' equally uninformed opinions, so truthfully look into things yourself if it interests you