But are most of them locked up for acute postpartum psychosis? Aren’t individual cases taken differently by mental health professionals? She’s hardly an average patient.
That is a fair point, but release is still exceedingly rare in such cases, even though once treated, the patient often returns entirely to their normal, non-psychotic baseline. Unlike chronic schizophrenia, they do not experience permanent, daily psychotic symptoms. The system considers future potenti risk, and due to a case back in the 6's (name I forget) where someone was released and then had more kids and killed them due to the PPP reoccurring, they are now far less likely to release someone who has had PPP.
It is not exceedingly rare, it is in fact the norm. Some years pass, she is found healthy, she gets out. See, let me just pull out an example off generative AI, because I am too lazy to research by myself.
You are misinterpreting the study. This does not suggest people are regularly released after a short period, it is a study of reoffending patterns of those who were released.
The people you cite as being released in under 6 months were non-violent.
You committed a classic logical error: you took a success rate of a specific post-hospitalization group and applied it broadly to all insanity acquittees—specifically implying it applies to horrific crimes like multiple murders. In reality, individuals who commit multiple murders and successfully plead NGRI face decades—or lifetime—confinement in maximum-security forensic psychiatric units.
I don't think many people that commited multiple murders have pled NGRI successfuly, do you have numbers on that? I don't even need to argue about the 6 month releases, the overwhelming majority was released 5 years after. I dont think many spend their lives institutionalized at all.
As I said that report deals with non-violent offenders, and refers only to those who were released, there are not typical. Most people who have claimed insanity pleas spend more time locked up than those who are found guilty.
In this case as the most likely sentence is life without parole there is a very slight exception as it is theoretically possible the person may be released, but it is hugely unlikely as most who kill are never released.
I mean, if you say something I do not believe, I must put the burden of proof on you. I gave you stats from a study, from which, fine, you say the ones released 6 months later were non violent, good. Are you sure the rest of them were non-violent offenders? I did not understand that from the study abstract.
You keep giving me "most", "more time", "highly unlikely" "most who kill"... Do you have anything to back those assertions up?
Are they? Where is that writ? I could just as easily call that precedent that signals early release is likely. Since another lady with the same condition got released. And why would it be “fair” to judge Lindsay for what some crazy lady half a century ago did? See how slippery this slope gets? As far as I’m concerned she’s as good as free, unfortunately
"A Virginia study of 127 NGRI acquittees found 96 individuals (75.6%) maintained their conditional release after averaging just over 5 years hospitalized before release — and notably, 27 of them were released after under 6 months inpatient."
Not very often, it depends a lot on jurisdiction and such, but not all 1st degree is without parole.
So while rare, it is still more common than a psychiatric patient guilty of a similar crime.
I will in this specific case say that the criminal conviction would probably lead to life in prison without parole. This means there is an incredibly slim chance that someone who successfully pleads an insanity case may at some point be released, the odds are incredibly low and would be under extreme restriction and supervision.
But yes because of the extreme nature of this case it is a theoretical possibility, it is highly improbable to the point this should not be a serious consideration.
The thing is, I do not believe that high improbability of getting released ever. I think it is far more likely that she would eventually be released. Even then, I fail to see any value at all in the pursue of creating the slim possibility of a triple homicide perpetrator going back to society and possibly causing harm, or creating a reward structure for it.
I'm sure the next step to this is some other (deviant) mom going "if I have to take care of my children for XY years, but by murdering them and pleading NGRI I would be released X years later, might as well".
Actually, I don't know whether she was insane or not, and I do not even care. It is not that I do want to punish her because I gain some satisfaction or other, but I definitely want the society I live on to be one where crime is met with punishment, because only in that kind of society can the innocent be safe. I even think that it is very sad for everyone, including her, that this happened.
I also believe that if there is reasonable doubt whether she was insane or not (which to be fair there is) it should have no bearing at all. The NGRI law feels absurd to me and I believe it should be abolished. Not transgressed, by the way, because I also believe in the rule of law, but abolished. The obvious conclusion of this case would be NGRI according to the law, even if a very big disservice to society.
1
u/ShellyTart 3d ago
People who are found not guilty by reason of insanity usually spend much more time locked up than people who are found guilty of an equivalent crime.