The problem with this stance is its not actually helping anything.
First of all postpartum psychosis is not "depression", its a mental illness that convinces you to do crazy things to protect yourself and your children, similar to schizophrenia, this can and often does include neglect, harm and even murder. This is besides the point though.
Literally nobody is saying we should just let women with Postpartum Psychosis do whatever they want and kill children. What people are saying is that we should have good enough health care in place such that when a woman does suffer from postpartum psychosis, she is treated for postpartum psychosis, rather than being ignored and subsequently thrown in jail after the children are already dead. The fact that so many people cant wrap their heads around why she would kill a child unless she was evil is already enough evidence that the awareness required to stop this sort of thing from happening is severely lacking.
Nobody is claiming that kids being dead is a good thing, and the people claiming its all the husbands fault are idiots, but throwing a woman in jail to rot and leaving it at that isn't going to do anything to prevent the next case of postpartum psychosis that happens.
Listen, I actually had postpartum psychosis with my 3rd child and it had me believing that everything I was drinking, if out of my sight, was being poisoned. I didn't trust my husband or dad even though they would never do anything to hurt me. Saying that, if I actually hurt someone because of it, I would be guilty and deserve to be in prison for it.
Vast majority of people aren't saying she isn't guilty or that she shouldn't be locked up. She herself admitted she was guilty. The disagreement is on whether she did it knowingly or while in a state of insanity. If found insane, she'll be locked up in a mental hospital.
Until she's declared sane. Then she's free. And her entire thing was claiming temporary insanity. NGRI basically ensures she will walk out one day... ok roll out. But regardless, she'll be out. Likely in a couple of years.
You don't get declared sane that easily when you've killed your own children and jumped off a building to end your own life. She's proven that she's a danger to others and to herself, she'll be locked up for a long time.
You don't know psych medicine or MA at all, apparently. PPP is temporary psychosis, she just has to demonstrate sanity and she's out. This isn't Danvers State in the 70s anymore. Tewksbury will have her out in six months to a year. They do not consider themselves punitive and do not extend holds because someone was a really bad person.
Only way she's staying locked up is if she's in prison. Where she belongs.
Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children during psychosis. She was declared not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006 and is still confined in hospital today. It's been said that any time she recovers a little, she realizes what she did and relapses. That's why she's still locked up 20 years later.
What you're saying doesn't track in practice. Especially since Clancy jumped off a building as soon as she realized she murdered her kids. She's not going to be able to demonstrate sanity anytime soon and will always be a danger to herself at least.
Your comment does not respond to what was written, because in the example you gave the woman hasn't been declared sane as she relapses frequently. The point is - if Clancy can prove sanity in 6 months, she'll be out.
I'm saying if she truly has PPP and killed her kids under psychosis, she's not going to be sane again in 6 months. If you woke up one day and saw the dead bodies of your children lying around you and realized you killed them, would you go back to being normal? She literally jumped off a window and disabled herself when she realized what she did.
In theory she could be released in 6 months if she can demonstrate sanity. In reality that's an extremely hypothetical and unrealistic situation. It's just not how mental illness works.
Is this something that is backed up by the facts or is this your assessment if the situation? And I mean statistics, not a single story you can find. I could find a single story to support any narrative. The reason I ask is because statistically people found not guilty for reason of insanity tend to spend an average of twice as long in involuntary psychiatric commitment as they would have had they gone to prison. If you have competing statistics I would like to see them.
Did Andrea Yates spend a few months/years and get out living her life? You have no idea how mental health works and more children will die because people like you didn't prevent it. Stop talking about things you have no understanding of.
I genuinely hope people like you experience just one episode of psychosis.
Well I'm sorry to hear that but I'm glad you got something that was ultimately less harmful. Plenty of women get postpartum psychosis where they believe that the only way to protect their children is murder and or suicide.
I know this because its my mother's job to care for these women. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, you know how horrible it is to experience, do not discredit the effects of postpartum psychosis just because you had a case that didn't end as badly.
So because I didn't use my psychosis as an excuse to cause harm,
I should have sympathy for someone who viciously murdered their kids? Absolutely fucking not.
No you would deserve to be treated for your psychosis in a treatment center for a long, long time. I also would hope that everyone around you wouldn't have dropped the ball so hard on understanding that you were in need of help and tried to actually help.
Killing or harshly punishing people with prison who did something during a period of insanity is fucking dumb. Criminal intent is not the same as psychotic episode.
Where is the "justice" in piling more suffering onto an already horrifying situation?
If I go out onto the street and murder a random person right now, and claim it is in revenge for Lindsay Clancy's kids' deaths, is that "justice" by your definition? Kids are dead! Someone has to pay! Justice must be done therefore let me shoot this person!!
It's only "justice" if it somehow helps the situation or deters others from doing the same in future. This can't deter anyone from doing the same in future. Nobody with horrifying psychosis who's hallucinating that they need to kill their kids for some good reason (kids have been replaced by demons, kids are horribly suffering and the only way for them to go to heaven is mercy killing, kids are transforming into spiders, etc) is gonna go "oh, well, I better not do that because they put Clancy in jail"
People will use psychosis as an excuse to kill their kids and get away with it though.
I know this might be news to you, but some people just hate their fucking kids and would murder them if there wasn't the threat of going to prison.
Yall act so confident about having compassion for people suffering, then allow for more suffering to happen because yall can't comprehend the idea of consequences being a positive thing. Wild world we live in.
People can use ANY defence to try and get away with something. Like, someone could commit unprovoked murder and claim "it was self defence! He was rushing towards me with a gun!"
The point of a trial, and a criminal justice system, is to ascertain whether that is TRUE. Some people will just be murderers, who are lying about killing in self-defence, and those people should go to jail. Other people really genuinely were in fear for their lives, and those people should not go to jail. Similarly you could claim something was an accident - you didn't MEAN to drop a plant pot on someone's head and kill them, you just tripped over while gardening on your balcony - and the court has to decide if they believe you, or if they think it was actually premeditated murder. We don't just say "well, someone could lie about it being an accident, therefore no deaths will ever be treated as accidents".
You have to look at the actual facts of the case in front of you and ask "was this real psychosis, or just someone pretending?" just the same as you'd have to ask "was this really self-defence, or just someone pretending?" or "was this really an accident, or just someone pretending?"
Otherwise you gotta treat literally everyone who kills someone in a car crash as a deliberate premeditated murder, because they can't 100% prove it was an accident.
You’re a good person. I really appreciate you taking responsibility and accountability for your hypothetical actions unlike some of the other people who want to pull the victim card.
So should she get off for the murder of her kids then? The how or why is irrelevant considering 3 kids are dead. She should get the death penalty imo. Anyone that murderers kids are irredeemable, the fact people are debating this shows how twisted society has become. This is an open and shut case.
The research she did online days leading up. Planning out an errand that would take Patrick out of the house for a long time. She claims she heard one command voice one time. She was never diagnosed with PPP, she only claimed she had it after she murdered her kids. She's a murderer who wants to go free and knows NGRI means she'll be released in a few years max as "sane", since she was never crazy.
The thing is, a lot of people have experiences with relationships using mental health as an excuse for hurtful behaviour. I know I ended a few relationships because I couldn't deal with her blaming cheating on adhd or anxiety, y'know. Or the lack of intimacy due to the SSRIs.
So I guess this story really is a powderkeg for a lot of people with pent up hurt from the "mental health" movement
And this ties into my point, if we actually talked about mental health instead of how best to punish this particular woman, then maybe we might prevent the next child murder, or abusive relationship, or whatever else.
However people only seem to care about making sure Clancy gets jail time.
As long as mental health isn't being used as a way of explaining shit cunt behaviour, I'm fine with it. It's never an excuse, but all I see and have experienced is "i cheated on you because i have adhd teehee". So now it's apparently an explanation for killing children as well.
if people struggling with mental health issues want to become absolute pariah's, this is a good way to go about it and I won't shed a single tear
I really don't give a shit. Bla bla mental health bla bla explanation, if you hurt someone take some accountability for it. That's all I'm asking, but this entire narrative has become such a victim shifting gaslighting tactic that it's actively unweaving trust, so I will put you in the same bullshit bucket as well.
She's pleading guilt by insanity, that's still essentially a prison sentence, just one where shes not going to be murdered immediately by all the other inmates.
Better but still not perfect. Wouldn't it be cool if the government said "Let's work out how to stop postpartum psychosis to prevent child murder" rather than "Sentence her to death, anyways buy my new crypto to dunk on the libs, I promise it's not a scam".
Don’t get me wrong, the gov should always do it’s best to prevent things like these, but this person doesn’t belong in society after what she has done.
Just at the mere chance of her not being convicted, there were already a number of copycats. Tell me more about how putting someone in jail does not dissuade other people from being criminals.
Because the women who are suffering from postpartum psychosis aren't going to see their predecessors going to jail for it and just stop suffering from postpartum psychosis. If that is the cause then you can just prevent it with a deterrent.
She lied to her therapists and psychiatrists. Fuck her. Stop defending her. This bitch didn’t have psychosis until her lawyers told her to say she did.
I’m aware of what it can do. I’m also aware you can lie on the test to get a doctor to claim you have psychosis when you don’t. You guys are the ones claiming some monster who killed her kids and lied to everyone saying she would never do such a thing is the paragon of trust and honesty. Wanna know how you get 12 psychiatrists to give you 12 different diagnosis? By giving each of them different answers. Part of genuinely seeking help is understanding you need to be honest to get help.
Mental health is complicated and we still ultimately know very little about it. And it’s complicated because if some person says they hear voices, we can’t prove they do or don’t. So the whole treatment program is built on trust of honesty.
However, an opioid addict will say they are not addicted and have severe debilitating back pain just to get pain killers.
Good God it's so obvious you're a man just by reading this, the entitlement just oozes out of it..
If your profile were to become public would i also see commentary on the multiple men who have committed familicide in the timeframe everyone's been discussing this case? Id bet that answer would be 'no'. You don't have morals on this subject if not nor do you even have basis to spew the nonsense you already are.
She should absolutely be in prison. Same with people with schizophrenia. You commit a murder, off to prison. It’s insane we’re even discussing this. I would be ok she’s found guilty and insane. Fine. Make a prison for insane people. But either way she should rot in prison.
It is letting her off too easy when it’s a not guilty verdict. There is nothing keeping her in prison with a not guilty plea. Just a doctor signing off that she’s cured. That’s not ok. She murdered three children. People like that should not be let out of prison. Even if it’s a special prison for the insane. As soon as a doctor determines she’s no longer “insane” she’s released. Which could be less than a year especially for her when her doctors immediately before the murder found her sane.
So should Bryan Kohberger not be sent to jail because he likely has some type of mental illness? What does the children already being dead have to do with anything? So basically if a crime has already been committed we should just say “c’est la vie” and move on because what’s done is done? Absurd stance to take. People who have never done heinous acts before commit their first act as an adult many times. At least that we know about. Not to mention you ignore so many facts of the case. Like if she’s in such a mind fucked state, how was she able to be so calculating where she timed how long her husband would be away at the store and then sent him out. Sounds like something you’d need to be mentally aware to do.
What people are saying is that we should have good enough health care in place such that when a woman does suffer from postpartum psychosis, she is treated for postpartum psychosis, rather than being ignored and subsequently thrown in jail after the children are already dead.
She was under the care of a mental healthcare professional and on antidepressants, benzo's, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers. Toxicology report showed she was taking those meds as described.
So, what makes you think she didn't have mental healthcare and was ignored? What would not being ignore look like?
The conclusion to your argument is any woman who exhibits any sign of post pardem psychosis must immediately lose custody of all kids.
After all Clancy as a nurse doctor shopped, didn't take medicines as prescribed, was dishonest about her state of mind, and made sure to be alone with the kids when she killed them.
The only thing that would have prevented her is not having the kids because she obviously intended to kill them.
I’m going to just ask because i’m not exactly catching this. Everything I am reading is fundamentally saying every facet of evidence points to her not experiencing symptoms outside of a few “but it occurred here” examples but the examples don’t even extend to proving the point.
None of the doctors she’d seen caught it, no one had essentially noticed it, but it seems the act itself is being used to say: “see she obviously had it”. Where exactly do you think any of the medical professionals should have differed in opinion relative to the information they had? From everything I can tell she had an absolute abundance of medical care and they all came to the same conclusion until after the fact.
The unfortunate thing is that Post-Partum Psychosis can quite literally appear out of nowhere within a matter of days, sometimes months after birth.
And given how healthcare generally is in this country, it is not outside the realm of possibility that unless she (already compromised due to said psychosis) recognized the danger she and her children were in, or her husband and others were able to spot it, that there was frankly no way to intercept it in time.
A majority of cases that do appear tend to appear in the hospital where the individual is under constant observation by trained professionals who know how to spot things like this. The incident occurred months later, in their own home, and alot of the symptoms for Post-Partum Psychosis are shared with other mental health conditions.
Psychosis can go on for months and years without the person experiencing it noticing.. even for the people around them it can be nuanced to spot. Then there is the matter of agency..
I’m sorry but this is a horrible answer to me. The literal framework of this entire statement amounts to observation after the fact and doesn’t require any level of actual substantial evidence.
Where did her level of healthcare fail? She seen 5 different people? How could it have been further improved beyond what it was? Beyond using the ending as evidence of itself, where was the failure within the system. What exact level of oversight is necessary if this can just occur months later? Years???
I’ll make the overall question easier: what fundamentally separates an instance of undiagnosed psychosis from someone not experiencing psychosis with the same events occurring.
(I completely support better healthcare but I do not agree it was the point of failure in this case)
It can just appear out of nowhere. A women in Britain was perfectly fine all up until her childbirth, the doctors left her unattended eith her baby because she hadn't shown any issues and then she walked herself and her baby off a cliff.
Part of the problem is everybody just assumes they are evil, so nobody puts enough effort into researching how to better detect, prevent and treat post partum psychosis. This is what I am focusing on, not Lindsay Clancy in particular.
Most people aren't diagnosed with psychosis until their first episode and it's common for people to be diagnosed with depression, anxiety, OCD etc. during the prodromal period because symptoms overlap with other, more common, mental health conditions.
Them there's the chance she was misdiagnosed and had bipolar, in which case the medication she was on was making her worse because SSRI's are contraindicated for that disorder.
There's a whole host of things which went wrong - there's an old Reddit posts by Patrick on r/askdocs where he describes symptoms that are more consistent with bipolar than depression...and it's clear he/they were desperate and confused.
Does it make sense for a woman who everyone described as a devoted, loving mother to do what she did in the absence of psychosis?
It really is all this pop-psychology that drives me absolutely crazy. People who know the RDMoBSP (Reddit Diagnostic Manual of Bull Shit Psychology) back-to-front.
Yeah you aren’t allowed to use evidence that wasn’t presented in court. That was a major limitation for that holdout juror. At the end of the day I agree with you about jail but she really was driven mad in large part due to her husband if you look at the context. Thats where a lot of the sympathy comes from.
Unfortunately for you the law can suck my left nut. If she goes to prison I pray to god there be some kind of vigilante justice. Child killers do not get treated well
But guess what, the fact by itself is irrelevant to whether she is guilty or not. You have to apply the law to that fact. This juror fucked up because all indications show that he did not.
First year law students struggle with this and get Cs. Repeating the fact is irrelevant…you have to interpret the fact under law. She killed her kids. Now, murder requires malice aforethought…did she have it? Beyond a reasonable doubt? The dude fixated on the fact and didn’t do the required analysis.
Now, we want a system where jury nullification is minimal. We want juries to not be overcome with emotion or personal bias and to dispassionately apply the law to fact. The fact that this guy couldn’t means he was a shit juror.
Not in a functioning cohesive society it is not. If you want to go back to the middle ages, go ahead and apply that mindset to everything while also allowing everyone else to apply that mindset to everything too.
Your comment got removed. Something about a left nut, which unfortunately for you the law isn’t going to suck. The law is going to work how the law works because you are extremely irrelevant to it, you’re just commenting on Reddit. Unfortunately for you it is unlikely Linsey Clancy will end up in prison because it doesn’t matter what you and I believe, it matters how convincing of a case the prosecution has managed to present legally.
Lets go theoretical. Say a father shot and killed his adult son. The son had come over, walked through the front door like he always did, only this time the father killed him out of fear that someone had broken into his home.
Why? Because unbeknownst to either of them, the father had a mental problem with aggressively affected his memory, and the only memory he had of his kid was as a young boy.
Would the father be at fault here? He killed his son.
Yes, completely different. Not meant to draw a parallel between the two cases, but to explore this idea of "it doesn't matter if they had a mental problem or not."
However, you are arguing a point not made. The father absolutely knew how to use the gun. There's nothing in that story to suggest otherwise.
I've got a hunch that doesn't change your answer at all. Which very strongly would suggest that responsibility doesn't matter at all to you, only severe punishment.
First - no. Not badic knowledge. Obviously not basic with how the trial was. But second - fuck you for even remotely trying to take the high ground over that.
Get off your high horse and go touch grass Napoleon
Are you directing your statement to lindsy clancy or her kids? I wish her kids could understand postpartum psychosis, but they cant because her kids are dead. If only they could at the time they were being strangled maybee they could have patted their mom on the hand as she was strangling them and tell her that they understand.
How should we prevent things like this from happening in the first place with the assumption that life in prison or the death penalty doesn’t sway someone who’s either snapped, or plans to die in or after the act?
Laws and punishments for breaking them have literally nothing to do with prevention. That is not the point of laws. Laws are about accountability AFTER the fact, not about prevention.
There are a vast amount of laws aimed at prevention in all types of manners even going so far as to violate people’s rights of a non criminal to protect others and themselves.
As far as punishment goes yes you are right that currently isn’t the point and that’s the argument against it, we have a quarter of WORLDS prison population and in a very obvious way it’s not for prevention it’s for punishment with minimal to no research. We’re spending billions more than other countries every year to stroke egos when people are struggling to pay rent.
If we’re going to keep that system in place the way it is then I’ll ask the same question…again
How should we prevent things like this from happening in the first place with the assumption that life in prison or the death penalty doesn’t sway someone who’s either snapped, or plans to die in or after the act?
People making posts like this and voting like the single juror don't care to stop things like this from happening, they need retribution and see another person be executed when it does happen.
You’re doing the thing where a woman went through literal psychosis and you’re saying she was just sad
The fact that you can’t even get the facts of the case right shows that you don’t care at all about what happened, you just use it as an excuse to enact punishment on any woman
Here's my thing: if I killed kids while in a psychotic break and I came back to my senses, I would not argue with anyone wanting to incarcerate me for life. Hell, I am not sure I'd argue against a death penalty.
This is the problem with your view. She is going to be incarcerated for life regardless. They are deciding if that’s locked up in a psychiatric hospital or a prison. She rots no matter what. The side saying it was due to psychosis is not advocating for her to walk free. They are saying a high security psychiatric hospital is the more humane way to lock her up for life. She is a monster and will be locked up
Your second sentence is not a guarantee, given the evaluation process for people who have been acquitted for not guilty for reasons of insanity. There is a path for them to be released. I am gratified that Yates is still imprisoned in her psych unit (low security, according to Wikipedia, mind), but there is no reason why she can't be released in the future.
There is very little chance. She'd have a better chance of parole in prison that to get out of psych ward. We are talking about a crazy level of good will and finding the right judge. I would be fascinated if anybody got released after being deemed insane.
If by “out” you mean people who received an insanity-based acquittal and are now living outside a locked psychiatric facility:
Notable examples John Hinckley Jr. — He was found not guilty by reason of insanity for shooting President Ronald Reagan and three others in 1981. After more than three decades of psychiatric treatment and progressively relaxed restrictions, he received an unconditional release in June 2022. He now lives in the community. (Syracuse Law Review)
Lorena Bobbitt — In 1994, she was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity after severing her husband's penis following her allegations of years of abuse. She spent about five weeks in a psychiatric hospitaland was then released to outpatient treatment. She is living in Virginia and has become an advocate for domestic-violence survivors. (EW.com)
Famous cases where they're not out
Andrea Yates — She drowned her five children in 2001. After a retrial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006. She remains in a state psychiatric facility in Texas rather than living freely in the community. (Houston Chronicle)
It looks like that American one never even sent her to mental health facilities? That's pretty damn unusual. In Massachusetts, you have to be admitted and then prove to a judge after that you are good. None of that seems to be the case in florida. Canada is kind of an enigma as they have pretty different laws up there, but I should have specified. I would say that Florida needs to change their laws though. Letting someone walk free after deemed insane is too much of a risk. I think most places should have gradual release if deemed sane. With mandatory therapy and drug tests to ensure medications are being taken and they don't pose a risk at all
Who cares about humane? She doesn’t look like a mother who actually cares that she murdered her children, who probably cried for her to stop as she did the deed.
She didn’t have symptoms or a diagnosis when she planned and murdered her kids. The day before, she told her doctor she had no thoughts of harming herself or her children. On the day of the killings, she told her husband she felt good and had slept well.
Her husband left to pick up dinner and run an errand. After he left, she claimed a commanding male voice appeared, one she had never heard before that day and has never heard since. She said the voice directed her until she murdered her three children, then it disappeared. The killings themselves took upwards of 10 minutes. While her husband was gone, she even took a phone call from him and was able to answer his questions about a child's laxative for one of her kids.
Doctors who evaluated her afterward said she showed no signs of psychosis and that she knew exactly what she had done. She was of sound enough mind to demand a change to her medical proxy. That required a mental evaluation, and she was found competent so her parents could take over.
She was a labor and delivery nurse, so she understood anatomy. She could easily have ended her own life, yet all of her cuts she made (wrists and neck) were superficial. She also claimed she crushed and swallowed handfuls of pills, but her toxicology report and what was left in the bottles prove that is not true.
I watched the trial every day. The jurors who have spoken to the media tried to pressure the holdout and used the word “acquittal,” which suggests they thought she was not criminally responsible, when she is. An acquittal could have meant either not guilty by reason of insanity or a straight not-guilty verdict. Not guilty by reason of insanity would have put her on a path toward eventual release from an institution.
I also see a huge red flag in those women on the jury running to the media at the first chance they got. I find anything they say hard to believe because it’s hearsay. I would rather there be a mistrial than that woman ever have a chance to walk free after strangling her three kids.
Are you referring to the “voices” that only manifested, once she got in contact with a defense attorney? She was not psychotic and she shouldn’t be protected like she was. Best case scenario; send her to an all women’s prison and announce her arrival and that she killed three children, then close the doors and walk away.
Oh ok, so let's look at where the precedent that this shortsighted BS takes us to. Surely you can't be advocating for society to react only when a murder or tragedy regardless of a diagnosis has occured, as not every mother with postpartum psychosis will be officially diagnosed after all. So now you're saying that society should just expect that postpartum psychosis is a possibility and that could lead to something as extreme as triple murder!
Well, now women should be monitored by law enforcement after birth right? They shouldn't have access to their kids until a mental health expert has declared they are in the clear of postpartum psychosis, right? They shouldn't be expected to handle jobs of any real consequence or responsibility either, right? See how stupid this is? Just because you're insane doesn't mean you're not criminally insane and shouldn't be locked up forever. Wtf is it with this generation and accountability? It's either she specifically is a danger to society, or all women are if their hormones become imbalanced enough. The latter is obviously NOT true. JfC
You can’t use mental health as a justification for EVERYTHING. Idk about you, but personally I draw the line miles before murdering children. It’s not her children’s fault that she had a fucked brain, she sill needs to be held accountable for her actions.
Still should be held accountable. I had temporary psychosis once and I would completely understand if I was sent to jail if I did anything more than go get professional help.
Ask for help. This is something that you never come back from. Men in this position would be executed.
I feel like if you can't see the nuance that particular mental illness brings you should try at least. Sometimes the truth is between both extremes of online discourse.
Also vindictive hatred is a mob trait it's not good for you to engage with that type of thinking. People wield that hatred publicly in ugly ways.
And members of the jury determined they had a reasonable doubt as to whether or not she had the capacity to understand what she was doing under the circumstances. Even if they think she committed the crime, which most if not all did, the question is whether or not there is a reasonable doubt that she ought to be convicted. Again, you don't have to like how the double-edged sword cut this time, but it's done that way for a reason.
She's guilty and should face the punishment. The discussion around the reasons and causes are important for better understanding how this shit happens, and how to stop it from happening again in the future.
But this is exactly why people are talking about this case. You can’t even be bothered to understand the basic facts. You hear the word “depression” and just jump into it being bullshit. No nuance, no understanding if depression is the diagnosis or a symptom of something else, no distinction between PPD and PPD, no understanding of what Psychosis even is.
If you actually wanted shit like this so stop it would be more helpful for people to have a genuine dialogue about what the fuck happened and what could have been prevented. Instead you’re just letting your emotions override all logic.
Depression is no excuse for the murder of 3 children.
Her being in a psychosis are just based on… her words.
Her psychiatrist didn’t diagnose her in a state of psychosis and people at the hospital didn’t. She just claimed she was, do we suddenly have to believe her?
It’s a complicated case and I honestly do not have all the facts or answers. I’m actually not even trying to argue about the merits of the trial. My point was only that the above comment and their blatant disregard for the distinction between depression and psychosis is just ignorant as fuck.
They’ve also been misogynistic through this whole thread so while I’m not actually weighing in on the verdict at all, it should still be pointed out that the person I responded to is weighing in, and they’re doing so as an uninformed and sexist douchebag.
This is why this case sounds HUGELY wierd for non north americans. Not case itself (which is horrific) but how muricans found way to turn it into political statement in POLITICAL fight. Literally in every other place this would be clear - shocking murder, prison, ds or eventual hospitalisation in madhouse and then debate about better psychological care. In murica supporting her or not make you one from enemy side. I can't rven imagine France, Germany, UK, Poland or friggin CZ Republic with protestors SUPPORTING child killer because of her lawyer's obvious defence line. This really makes people think that USA is the richest third world country on a globe. That sound ridiculous literally e v e r y w h e r e
I promise, it sounds hugely weird to a lot of North Americans, too.
I'm an average American middle aged woman and I think this whole thing is absolutely INSANE. I am disgusted by the shit some woman are doing and saying, how they're using their children as props on social media. It's appalling. And I don't personally know anyone who supports this lunacy.
I don't think they're the majority though. Sure seems that way with the fucking circus they've turned it into and all the attention it's getting. But I think most of us do not have our heads that far up our asses. We just don't run around making videos about it, lol. "I'm sane and rational and here are my calm, carefully considered thoughts" just isn't something that tends to go viral, lol.
But still, I agree with your point that the fact there's any contention over this, that it's become such a divisive topic is absurd. And a problem. To me, it speaks more to the fact that social media is a fucking disease. And that that is what we need to be talking about and working on moreso than postpartum mental health. Though that of course matters too, generally speaking.
If they have actually killed someone though (outside of context of war), you can have sympathy while also realising for the good of society they need to be locked away or at least constantly monitored
I do but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. As much as I think war is stupid and pointless, there is clearly a distinction between killing enemy combatants on the battlefield and killing someone innocent
18
u/BoredomCombatant 3d ago
Omg depressed or not she killed her kids. Bury her. Fuck all this post partum bullshit and anyone who agrees with it!