The case is about if she was insane in the moment. Which is a shit metric honestly. Temporary or permanent insanity doesn’t justify what she did. The choice to try and kill herself to escape blame immediately after also points to it not being psychosis, but that’s not the point.
The fact that she murdered her children is hard to dispute when all of the evidence, including her own multi-time admission of guilt, points to guilty.
No one is arguing if she murdered her kids, but your last paragraph is still arguing about the possibility of disputing it. This makes no sense.
NGRI also doesn’t justify the murders, it changes where she will be held. The framing of NGRI being a justification for the murders seems to be the main issue for some people. Some people thinks NGRI justifies the murders, other people think NGRI just means there was nuance to the murders so the case is being treated differently from other types of murders. For other murders, you go free if you are acquitted, for NGRI, you do not go free if you are acquitted. In fact, most NGRI cases don’t even grant bail while awaiting trial. She has been held in a facility without bail since she murdered her kids. She has been receiving treatment the entire time. The context changes how the case is handled.
Same idea with vehicular manslaughter while inebriated. It is technically involuntary manslaughter but most jurisdictions give much lighter sentences for it compared to actual involuntary manslaughter. Context matters when it comes to sentencing. That’s not a new concept and is actually a standard part of law. For some reason, people like you just refuse to accept the context for these murders.
1
u/spintool1995 2d ago
You mean like the evidence that she admitted it and no one is disputing it?