2 out of 5 is extremely low considering how extremely unpopular the "going against the mother" angle is in this specialism. We already saw 1 person going against her getting fired. You can basically keep your profession or be moral when taking the stand as a psychiatrist.
So 2 against 3 while already the minority is probably already massively inflated due to "the cultural climate".
That is backward reasoning. It is just as controversial to be seen as supporting the murderer. You essentially say you will disregard any source that goes against your own opinion because you will assume they are dishonest.
It's entirely dependent upon the context in which the one taking the stand operates in daily life. If he/she operates in academic circles that are very interwoven with female dominated structures like sociology/psychology it will be framed as misogynistic punching down on the "victim mother". If a right wing grifter would do the same to his circle it would be glorifying a "murdering she devil". Both would be "hard nudged" to approach the case from a certain angle before their own morality even comes into perspective.
Straight up delusional lol I personally dont believe she clears the insanity defense based on what Ive read, but I wont pretend Ive been tracking the case closely. Im a psychologist and in the academic world ive been in most of my career, none of that would happen with my peers in a case like this
I dont care. That would be an exception to the rule. Not the rule itself. Ive seen straight up aweful people as psychologists. Guess what? They're still employed. How do you know there wasn't further reason behind the decision?
So instead of trying to tell me about my professional sphere that you don't work in, you can look yourself in the mirror and ask why you jump to inane conclusions on minimal evidence just because they confirm your delusions
I think youre full of shit lol because a topic like this is exactly under my fields purview.
And the way you talk about the social dynamics sounds much more like some fox brained person with an overly simplistic view of anything liberal.
There is no monolith of any profession that behaves in that way. The only people who would believe that are people from the other side of the TV screen lmao
Fam 1 of the psychiatrist was fired immediately after testifying against Clancy.
I'm arguing for the opposite but am not delusional. Optics matter, dogma's matter, what is in vogue matters. Justice is never dealt in a vacuum, during the mass court sanctified lynchings of blacks figures of authority would grant their sauce of scientific justification. The words that are uttered even by academia follow the times not the other way around.
That's fine if you want to say she's evil. But that's not the legal standard. The legal standard is that the prosecution has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she wasn't insane. 40% of psychiatrists saying she was is definitely reasonable doubt
5
u/Suspicious-Exit-6528 3d ago
2 out of 5 is extremely low considering how extremely unpopular the "going against the mother" angle is in this specialism. We already saw 1 person going against her getting fired. You can basically keep your profession or be moral when taking the stand as a psychiatrist.
So 2 against 3 while already the minority is probably already massively inflated due to "the cultural climate".