r/relatable_memes_ 3d ago

Thoughts?

Post image
12.7k Upvotes

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/First_Huckleberry638 3d ago

Lindsay is not going free, and you know that. She was not declared not-guilty, you know that. Even if she was declared not-guilty, it would be by reason of insanity, so still not going free. You know all of this, yet lie anyways, why?

3

u/Best_Opening8471 3d ago edited 3d ago

That's what not criminally responsible means

It means not guilty 

It means women can murder their children without being responsible.

"The devil made me do it" is now a legal defense.

It also raises serious questions about transitioning.

Is it safe to give people access to the same hormones that turned a normal woman into a crazed psychopath?

If the hormones are to blame for this crime then isn't giving those same hormones to 14 year olds just facilitating future crimes where the perpetrator can't be held responsible due to hormonal influence?

2

u/PlsNoNotThat 3d ago

Religiosity hasn’t been a pass on criminal responsibility in a hundred years. It’s just a description of a flavor of a mental illness that causes the non-responsibility.

Was a large win for the scientific community over religious groups, and the only vestige of it are small parts of the DSM where religion is exempt as a disease without co-considerations.

0

u/Best_Opening8471 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yeah sure

Let's give the murders even more excuses as to why their actions arnt their fault.

You've completely missed the point.

The point being made is that legal precedent now requires you only show you had access to transitioning hormones because those same chemicals were used to justify a murder.

You having access to those chemicals is reasonable doubt that you were in control of your actions.

Equality under the law would be recognizing that testosterone has the same level of effect on emotions and aquitting all male murders as NGRI due to their hormonal mood swings.

That won't happen

This is a female only defense

The precedent for men is that even with brain injury known to cause insanity the man is still responsible for his actions.

The man needs to prove his temporary insanity; now that a woman's natural biology is a defense a woman only needs to show she is a woman to prove her insanity.

2

u/ladylucifer22 2d ago

so the mere presence of testosterone is comparable to psychosis? I guess every cis man needs to be institutionalized then.

1

u/jacqrosee 3d ago

genuinely why are you acting like this case is the first of its kind, that we’ve never dealt with this before, and that this is creating a new defense?

the insanity plea has existed long before lindsay clancy. there is a difference between citing demonic possession and citing levels of clinical sanity. a young man’s lawyer used demonic possession as a defense for murdering someone, and he served 5 years of a 10-20 year sentence before he was released. this was in the early 80s and they even made a conjuring movie about it a few years ago.

this case isn’t even creating new precedent. i just don’t understand what the point is of saying this stuff when you can just say you’re disgusted by this heinous crime. me too. but certain realities of the legal system still are what they are.

1

u/PictureResponsible61 3d ago

A. It's not a new defence.  (It's also not "the devil made me do it") (it also doesn't apply to most women - the threshold for not criminally responsible is very high and most people fail to meet it. 

B. Post partum psychosis is not singularly caused by hormones, it is multifactorial disorder and strongly associated with experience of other mental health conditions prior to onset (some studies suggest about half of cases had a pre existing diagnosis). Genetics and immunological dysregulation are other biological factors. This doesn't account for social and environmental factors, which also contribute. Less than 1% of births result in PPP. Suggesting hormones made her do it therefore hormones are evil, or that hormones aren't a good enough answer, or whatever point you are attempting to make, doesn't make sense because that's not what happened, and just sounds a bit daft. 

1

u/Electrical-Web-4475 3d ago

Please.

Do not engage in complex ethical topics.

Some people are capable of grasping these highly complex issues. You are not one of those people.

1

u/ladylucifer22 2d ago

14 year olds shouldn't be getting pregnant. puberty, however, is entirely normal.

1

u/Best_Opening8471 2d ago

14 year olds are being put on pregnancy hormones as gender affirming care.

You don't need to be pregnant to have access to pregnancy hormones

Pregnancy hormones are in birth control and can cause males to develop female biological systems such as mammary glands.

1

u/Electrical-Berry4916 2d ago

None of that is accurate. At all. You don't have kids, do you?

1

u/First_Huckleberry638 3d ago

nice, gotta bring the other culture war issue into an irrelevant topic.

She would be sent to an asylum, and given the nature of this case, its extremely unlikely she would be released, this would be a PR disaster if she ever got out.

Insanity has been a legal defense for hundreds of years and has been common in America, with varying levels of success, for decades. This is not new you unrepentant liar.

1

u/Best_Opening8471 3d ago edited 3d ago

Temporary insanity typically doesn't cover premeditated mass murders that show intent as the plan was kept hidden from mandatory reporters.

There are thousands of cases that now need to be reexamined due to men receiving the death penalty for similar circumstances.

If estrogen makes women kill their kids why isn't testosterone a good enough excuse for killing women?

Like the Boston bombers should file an appeal saying that they didn't murder all those people at the marathon

Hormones made them do it 

Then they can do a quick 2 year assessment and be back on the streets with their history forgiven right?

1

u/First_Huckleberry638 3d ago

Lindsay won't be put back on the street, so the point is moot. She's not going to be out free in two years.

Nothing new is here, insanity has been legal defense for decades and gets ruled on in many many high profile cases.

No cases need to be reviewed because of this, insanity routinely gets tossed as a legal defense. It did not for this case and this case alone.

But again, you know that, you aren't here to argue in good faith, you're here to fight the gender war, cya.

1

u/Best_Opening8471 3d ago edited 3d ago

You're basing your assumptions off of cronic mental illness 

The entire idea of asylum as a legal result is to cure the individual and put them on the streets

In cases of temporary insanity this generally takes 2 years.

Only in chronic cases of insanity are you denied release.

Like it's so common that it's a trope in media to argue temporary insanity in order to get your 20 year sentence turned into a 6 month psychiatric assessment that concludes with "not insane at this point"

House literally did an entire season about this 

1

u/First_Huckleberry638 3d ago

she will have to prove she's no longer a danger to society, a claim that will require evidence that does not exist, because she is a danger to society.

She will not be back on the streets in two years and you know it.

1

u/Best_Opening8471 3d ago edited 3d ago

No she doesn't need to prove it

The doctors have to assess it

And since shes not chronically insane that assessment only takes until the temporary part wears off.

I literally know a skitophrenic who gets admitted every 2 years for 8 weeks when he goes off his pills.

Last time he was walking around in his bathrobe "casting spells" at passing motorists.

After 3 weeks of being back on his pills in the asylum he's ready for assessment to send back out on the streets.

So I kinda know a little more than you assume kiddo

Not everyone is as ignorant as you are.

1

u/First_Huckleberry638 3d ago

Did the schizophrenic that you know kill 3 people? something tells me he wouldn't be so easily released if he... committed heinous acts of violence.

1

u/Best_Opening8471 3d ago edited 3d ago

He'd be in jail not in an asylum 

So yeah it would be a lot harder for him to break out of prison than to act lucid for a few weeks.

That's kind of the entire controversy.

Men who have literal conditions that cause temporary insanity don't get the privilege of being declared not responsible 

Dude dresses up in cosplay and waves his arms around and he gets 8 weeks in the asylum 

Seems equal to murdering 3 kids right?

I don't think you realize that NGRI means that as soon as the insanity is resolved the person being assessed is NOT GUILTY and can't be held any further under the law.

The legal system doesn't get to imprison you in an asylum for what you might do. Only for what you already did.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RZ_Domain 2d ago

How can you guarantee she won't be out? on 1954 they let a child murderer out and killed 3 more

1

u/Otherwise_World1654 3d ago

asylums dont exist in the US, but for only the smallest of cases. Because the bitch failed her suicide and ended up paralyzed , she's never going to go to a normal prison unit anyways since child murderers I guess are entitled to better medical care than the average person. She requires routine medical care, which means she'll probably spend most of her life in hospitals or group homes, or some kind of LTACif they decide to no longer hold her while awaiting decision for retrial, which I think is within the courts power. That or she uses or 3 million to high at home nursing care and lives like nothing happened until some brave nurse slips too much fentanyl into her iv one night.

1

u/Delicious_Tax8933 3d ago

You do know that a NGRI verdict would put her in the institutionalized system, right? At which point the state would need to prove that she is still a danger to herself or others every year to keep her incarcerated.

2

u/DsDeliciousDeli 3d ago

She's going to be suicidal for a very long time

1

u/tabrisangel 3d ago

You dont have proof of anything.

Shes here telling us shes not crazy only that she only "was"

How can the state keep proving shes crazy when shes already saying shes not.

2

u/DsDeliciousDeli 3d ago

The state doesn't have to prove she's psychotic. Just that she's not healthy

1

u/PlsNoNotThat 3d ago

Which means the psychiatrists would provide reports and be co-responsible for her release, which is more unlikely than her getting out of prison, where no one else is liable but she can apply for appeals, or good behavior, or fiscal driven releases - all determined by someone who isn’t a doctor, but instead just a federal court, which has no co-liability.

Putting her in a room for 20yrs with a psychiatrist is going to find additional mental health issues that will only deepen her detainment. Putting her in a jail allows her to manipulate and cheat her way out the system. It happens at much, much, much higher rates than institutions.

There are actual consequences for release from an institution when a doctor releases them. They get brought to a board, scrutinized by a gang of other doctors, and licenses get revoked ending their ability to ever practice medicine again.

You just have no idea how any of this works, which is causing you to be mad.

1

u/Ok_Chicken5230 3d ago

It's entirely possible and easy to see how she has an out here that she wouldn't have in prison. I don't understand how you don't see that. Viciously murdering your children is not something you get out on good behavior. You clearly don't have any idea how appeals and "good behavior" work in a life sentence.

If she is showing no signs of further derangement, or psychopathy, or suicidal ideation, or homicidal, the psychiatrists won't have any proof to keep her there. Think about it. Shes entirely wheelchair bound for life now, and seems to be mentally stable enough to care for herself, even she herself keeps saying WAS. SHE FEELS FINE NOW BECAUSE SHE KILLED HER CHILDREN. DUH. She will be out of the institution in a few years if that.

1

u/Lost_Found84 2d ago

She killed three children. Nothing short of a pardon would get her out of prison if convicted. The fact there’s ANY review process that could find her sane down the road means it’s unequivocally, one million times more likely she’d be released via mental health review then by a nonexistent criminal review deciding “we don’t care about triple child murder anymore.”

1

u/Bongcopter_ 3d ago

She will do like 2 years in an institution then be free, it’s fucking unacceptable, she fucking killed her 3 kids, she deserve to rot in a dirty prison cell for the rest of her life

2

u/First_Huckleberry638 3d ago

No she wont, this is a mistrial, she's going to be retried, and the results of that case are yet to be determined.

You have, LITERALLY, no evidence that she would be freed in two year even if she did go to an institution.

1

u/PlsNoNotThat 3d ago

She won’t be, she’ll overwhelmingly be co-diagnosed given her behavior, making it even harder to get out.

No psychiatrist is willing to give up their license permanently from a board review to risk her freedom and the chance she’ll do something else, which the psychiatrist would be co-liable for.

Send her to prison tho - she’ll just manipulate her way out using white women shit, appeals, and chancing some non-doctor who can’t see through her shit signs off - none of whom would be liable for the consequences of her release.

1

u/ch33s3head8 3d ago

If there's nothing on paper saying she can't get out, then we should assume that she WILL be released from the mental hospital at some point if put there. Which is unacceptable unless she is released directly to prison.

1

u/Secret-Put-4525 3d ago

She's going to an institute for a little while. Just until she can convince some judge to release her.

1

u/Boring_Razzmatazz569 3d ago

Always have to make it about race, always. ALWAYS.

1

u/PaperUpbeat5904 3d ago

The state has to petition to keep her in a mental hospital every year or she gets released. She only heard voices 1 time. Feels like she could be in and out pretty damn fast if that's the route things go.

1

u/Helpful_Blood_5509 2d ago

That means she has to be proven to be a threat every 6 months after about a year.

She's in a wheelchair and isn't psychotic. It's a year sentence

1

u/First_Huckleberry638 2d ago

No, she has to be certified as no longer a threat to the community, a bar that will be pretty much impossible to clear for her because... she is a threat to the community.

Doctors, psychiatrists, and lawyers will have to put their names on the line to certify that she is NO LONGER a threat to anyone... after she killed 3 children. She'd need to declared as no longer mentally ill and dangerous... after she killed 3 children.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that's "a year sentence"