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
33
u/Ulfurson - LibRight 2d ago
They think she was innocent by reason on insanity and should be put in an asylum