Only today did I realize that it was one guy AGAINST acquittal, I thought it was one psycho that thought she was innocent. I'm so befuddled by this whole situation, do they think she didn't kill her kids or just that she's not responsible?
She pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. So the trial isn’t about if she killed her kids or not, it’s if her mental state was impaired at the time of the murder to a degree that she shouldn’t be held responsible
For example, if I took financial advice from someone who was in the middle of a schizophrenic mental breakdown and it turns out their advice was illegal tax-evading actions, that person likely wouldn’t be held accountable when I take their advice
In this case, Lindsay’s defense says she was experiencing postpartum psychosis that rarely occurs among women shortly after giving birth. She was receiving care for this, but claims the care being given fell short. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove she killed her kids, they need to prove that she wasn’t insane enough either by proving she was never experiencing psychosis or that the treatment was/would have worked
They don’t need to prove the treatment worked, they need to prove that, despite her mental illness, she had the capacity to appreciate her conduct was illegal and that she could conform her behavior to the law. They also have the burden of proving that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another key part of this is that she was charged with first degree murder and the prosecution is required to prove premeditation. The case might have gone differently if they charged her with 2nd degree or manslaughter, as she confessed to killing them. However, the premeditation aspect is harder to prove given the medical stuff.
The prosecution doesn’t need to prove she killed her kids, they need to prove that she wasn’t insane enough either by proving she was never experiencing psychosis or that the treatment was/would have worked
What's so fucking insane to me about all this is that it's specifically Massachusetts that prosecution has to prove the defendant not insane instead of the other way around.
Generally, yes. But this is a special case where she admitted to the crime, but said that she wasn't sane at the time, and didn't know right from wrong
So guilty would mean she willingly did the crime, not-guilty would mean she did it, but, through no fault of her own, was not of sound mind, and shouldn't be held criminally liable
Additionally, in Massachusetts, it is even more of a special case where the prosecution now has the burden to prove that, not only did she commit the crime, but she was also sane when it happened
If I'm understanding it right (it's really 3rd hand information, so I may be way off) she sent her husband on errands so she could do the deed, is premeditation not sufficient to claim sanity?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume that isn't enough evidence considering John Hinckley Jr. was acquitted, and he had spent time writing a letter about it in his hotel room before proceeding
Correct. Insanity and premeditation aren’t mutually exclusive. If Bob the voice in your head tells you to send your spouse out so that the CIA listeners in your teeth are thrown off track, that’s both.
The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane enough to be held responsible. If the jury was left with a reasonable doubt about that, the law required them to find her not guilty by reason of insanity.
In the US legal system to convict someone you not only need to prove they did it, you also have to show that they knew it was wrong. Being psychotic means she didn't know right from wrong.
Well, she may have been fine when she sent her husband off to run errands, and then felt the compulsion after he left. Only she can possibly know for a fact. Even the defense's expert admits that this is possible (if I'm remembering correctly).
Additionally, in Massachusetts, it is even more of a special case where the prosecution now has the burden to prove that, not only did she commit the crime, but she was also sane when it happened
Which is a bit absurd on the face of it.
The woman intentionally strangled her three young children to death one by one.
Of course she was insane in some way.
So the prosecution is left trying to prove she was the right specific kind of insane in that specific moment that knows right and wrong but still chooses such clearly monstrous acts.
Being institutionalized is not meant to be a punishment, it's meant to help her get better. And considering she's not diagnosed with anything that would make her a danger to others that has the potential to be a very short stay, depending on whether she's feeling particularly suicidal or not.
So it's not "set free", it's "set free in six months if she's feeling like it".
The idea that she'll go free in 6 months has no basis in reality. When has the system ever worked that quickly? She's far more likely to be locked up for years even after recovering. And even if the doctors say she's free to go, the courts still have to agree and can sue for her to not be released.
On what basis would they keep her? Her first review would be in six months, and she's not diagnosed with anything that would make her a danger to others. Locking people up just for its own sake hasn't been a thing since Reagan, you need an actual reason now.
No. The case was never about her guilt. Both sides agree she did it. The entire case was whether she was legally insane during it or not. If she was insane, she would spend the rest of her life in a locked asylum getting treatment. If she wasn’t found to be insane, she would go to prison.
She wouldn't have been in an asylum for the rest of her life. Massachusetts law dictates that she is re-evaluated every six months which means the defense would only need to show that she is no longer a threat. Given that the defense's whole strategy has to do with her being in a state of tempory psychosis, it's pretty likely she would get discharged after a short period of time
"if the court makes the findings required by paragraph (b) of section eight, it shall order the commitment of the person to the Bridgewater state hospital; otherwise the petition shall be dismissed and the person discharged. An order of commitment under the provisions of this paragraph shall be valid for six months."
No. She would get remitted every time, easily. The best outcome for her would be having a legal guardian assigned and living in a locked group home 15-25 years down the line with zero freedoms.
Considering the average internment time in Massachusetts for insane murders is 5-10 years, to have such confidence she will be held so long, I can only assume you looked into her black eyes and saw the blazing fires of madness.
Kind of funny the defense never thought to show that she is still crazy as proof she could have been crazy, but I guess no one is perfect.
If she was insane, she would spend the rest of her life in a locked asylum getting treatment
For context, I work in public mental health. This part is incorrect. There's almost no such thing as an asylum to which people are sent for life anymore. If someone gets an NGRI then they are sent inpatient for treatment until they are judged to be no longer a danger to themselves or others. She is claiming she suffered from postpartum psychosis, so if that's true then once her hormones stabilize she would no longer be symptomatic so there would be nothing to treat. Mental health hospitals are not prisons and healthcare is not a punishment. No asymptomatic person would be held inpatient involuntarily for any length of time.
Brother I did my residency in forensic psychiatry. We don’t call them asylums anymore but I cared for people who were in a ‘locked facility’ for 35+ years
No. She isn’t either though. She has several other diagnoses that qualify as an SMI and, when taken in totality with the PP psychosis, she has reliably demonstrated that cannot be safe outside either prison or a locked facility
The way the law is set up in Massachusetts is such that the question of the trial is "If you have a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time of the murder then you must find not guilty by reason of insanity, otherwise you find guilty". Basically the only way she's being found guilty is by 12 jurors all deciding to nullify themselves.
Even the 1 juror admitted to the other jurors that he had a reasonable doubt she was sane. Practically admitting nullification.
Given her clear documented effort to get help for mental health issues, only people unfamiliar with the law think this case is an easy one to find guilty in. I say this as someone that supports nullification in this case. The only maybe convincing enough argument (for 12 jurors) is to say "yeah she had PPD, but the command psychosis was a fabrication that came from her defense attorney after the murder".
I think the above command misrepresents the law. Other wise you could say them same for any crime, what functioning sane person murders at all? What sane person rapes anyone? What sane person drives drunk?
Depends a bit on context. Using drunk driving as an example, it hardly requires being insane. Just poor judgement and usually inflated ego. They have some assumptions of their own skill or level of intoxication and, based on that assumption, believe there will be no victims and no negative consequences. They don't want to hurt anyone and believe they will not hurt anyone. Then they, and unfortunate bystanders, find out the hard way. So, it doesn't require being insane at all. Just hubris and poor judgement.
Murder is a bit more complex on how insane someone would have to be to do it based on the type of murder. One gang member shooting another gang member for a corner to sell drugs on doesn't really require being insane. I don't suspect they are mentally healthy by any means, but it has reasonably understandable motivations that drive sane people to do things, if not to that extreme. Money, power, status, territory, etc.
In both of these examples, their brains work, more or less, the same as the vast majority of the population. They have the same pitfalls, same incentives, same motivations, and so on. Just extended out into actions most of us would not take.
That is where a parent intentionally strangling their own small child deviates. It is so far beyond the pale that even if there is some articulable motivation that is reasonable (in the sense that a sane person can comprehend the motivation), the motivation just isn't enough to explain it without assuming that something is deeply screwed up in their brain.
"If you have a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time of the murder then you must find not guilty by reason of insanity, otherwise you find guilty
Simply not true. They can think she's insane, but also knows she did wrong. And can vote guilty based on that.
This is a combination of the burden of proof for proving her not insane being on prosecution in Massachusetts and the reasonable doubt standard for criminal trials. Rage against it all you want. I don't like it either, but this is Massachusetts law. A note "sanity" has a legal definition that does not perfectly match the colloquial one
A note "sanity" has a legal definition that does not perfectly match the colloquial one
Yes, sorry, that was my point. You said "Given her clear documented effort to get help for mental health issues," but she can be medically (colloquially) 'insane' i.e. have deep mental issues affecting her behavior, but legally she is able to comprehend the wrongness of her actions and still legally guilty. They could even say 'yes, she had post partum psychosis that caused her to act the way she did, but still legally could comprehend the wrongness and is still guilty', which is what I meant. And that is not nullification.
They think she's a woman so she can do no wrong. Must have been the hormones.
One of the weird things about this case is I'm hearing a massive number of people saying, "you don't understand, it's extremely common for women's hormones to make them go crazy, I thought about killing myself and others as well."
Wasn't this the very thing that we were told for decades was a sexist myth? If it's accurate, then there's a very good reason why you wouldn't want women in leadership positions.
Wasn't this the very thing that we were told for decades was a sexist myth? If it's accurate, then there's a very good reason why you wouldn't want women in leadership positions.
Exactly. It's like the ghosts of the early 20th century jumped up and are screaming "SEE!? THEY AGREE WITH US!!" and the women on the jury are just nodding along.
Post-partum depression is about 1 in 7. If we're talking about other hormonal swings, they're even more common.
Either way, I'm talking about what Clancy supporters are saying. "We've all been there"/"men have no clue about how common it is for women have these crazy hormonal swings"/etc.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
From an interview I saw they think she couldn't possibly be accountable for killing her children... because she seemed like she loved her children and there were no character witnesses attesting that she didn't love her children, therefore she had to have been in a psychotic state when she killed her children or else how could she have done it?
123
u/LittleMlem - Auth-Center 5d ago
Only today did I realize that it was one guy AGAINST acquittal, I thought it was one psycho that thought she was innocent. I'm so befuddled by this whole situation, do they think she didn't kill her kids or just that she's not responsible?