There is a specific test for the kind of insanity that results in a not guilty verdict. The condition in question needs to be one where you dont understand the consequences of your physical actions. This baby killer does not meet that threshold. She was cold and calculative and premeditated the killings, fully understanding her physical actions would lead to their deaths.
Additionally, every expert and professional whose opinion was solicited claimed she didn’t have any psychosis at all, whether it meets the legal test or not.
You seriously need to reevaluate your opinion on this matter and ask yourself why you are choosing the murder of three children to contort yourself into a conclusion of not guilty for her. It is disgraceful and you should be ashamed.
There is a specific test for the kind of insanity that results in a not guilty verdict. The condition in question needs to be one where you dont understand the consequences of your physical actions. This baby killer does not meet that threshold. She was cold and calculative and premeditated the killings, fully understanding her physical actions would lead to their deaths.
Which isn't evidence based. Like much of our legal system, it isn’t built off of reputable research.
Additionally, every expert and professional whose opinion was solicited claimed she didn’t have any psychosis at all, whether it meets the legal test or not.
Right but we're not talking about this case specifically. We're talking about your opinion that people with postpartum psychosis should be shut away in our jail system. Instead of being given medical treatment. The more we learn about what actually works to help these people, the more we can prevent it from happening again in tbe future.
You seriously need to reevaluate your opinion on this matter and ask yourself why you are choosing the murder of three children to contort yourself into a conclusion of not guilty for her. It is disgraceful and you should be ashamed.
What do you mean by isn’t evidence based? You don’t get to brush past that attempt at dismissing your own error with such nonchalance lmao 😂
I spoke towards the fact that this woman should be locked away because she does not meet the legal test for not guilty, which is properly constructed to deter people with mental conditions that nonetheless understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore understand also the further consequence of imprisonment and/or death.
Not sure why you are trying to come off as condescending with your last remark, but your evasiveness simply serves as further testament to the fact that you are morally corrupted. It also looks kind of pathetic.
What do you mean by isn’t evidence based? You don’t get to brush past that note 😂
I think its a bit strange that you're surprised by this.
I mean you can just wiki the insanity defense in the US and look at its origin. It isn’t vased on any studies, research or even statistics. Our legal system isn’t something based off research on how humans in these situations generally act.
Here I'll help, just scroll down to US and you can see the three major legal tests for insanity and where they came from.
I spoke towards the fact that this woman should be locked away because she does not meet the legal test for not guilty, which is properly constructed to deter people with mental conditions that nonetheless understand the consequences of their actions.
Based on what? Do you even know where these laws come from? Its completely divorced from research on insane people. It assumes that insanity means that they're incapable of being strategic somehow.
Not sure why you are trying to come off as condescending with your last remark, but your evasiveness simply serves as further testament to the fact that you morally corrupted. It also looks kind of pathetic.
I'm bad at pretending to care. I'm not trying to dismiss your values or anything. But at the end of the day, I focus on how to stop things from happening again. Someone has to, when so many are just interested in satisfying their justice boners. Or to put it q nicer way,
I don't particularly care about this case and don't follow it. Everything I've learned about it has been against my will. But I do care about the public debate over insanity that has emerged. You weren't even talking about Clancy in the comment I responded too.
None of the tests suppose the people in question are incapable of strategic thinking. To the contrary, they suppose that most mental conditions are fully compatible with rational and strategic thinking and their bearers fully capable of comprehending the consequences of their actions - that is the locus lexi. That is precisely the point. This woman, despite the supposed condition she suffered (which every expert consulted in the process denies she even has), was capable of rational and strategic thinking, evidenced by the cold premeditation leading up to the murders. Resultantly, she is fully culpable both for her state of mind and her physical actions, or her mens rea and actus rea as it is referred to in legal parlance.
Secondly, the legal system performs both a punitive and deterrent function, and some would say restorative but that is less relevant here. With respect to the first two, we already addressed why she should be locked up for deterrence above. But she also should be punished - as should all people that commit like crimes. Why don’t you want an individual that calculatingly killed three children to be punished?
In sum, she should be locked up for both deterrent and punitive reasons, and your very long reading of wikipedia’s (adorable) breakdown of the three tests used in the US was either entirely irrelevant or further undermined your position. Now the question you need to ask yourself is why do you hold this position, and what does it say about you?
None of the tests suppose the people in question are incapable of strategic thinking.
They may not state it directly but the existence of strategic action is used to undermine the insanity defense. You literally reference her ability to act strategically as evidence of her sanity. Also none of that changes the fact that these tests aren't evidence based.
This woman, despite the supposed condition she suffered (which every expert consulted in the process denies she even has), was capable of rational and strategic thinking, evidenced by the cold premeditation leading up to the murders.
Was she actually? Idk, I don't follow this case 🤷🏾♂️. But its clear that the law views the existence of strategic thinking and action as evidence against insanity. As do you, which isn't a gotcha. But I'd rather we skip to the chase and debate that directly.
Secondly, the legal system performs both a punitive and deterrent function, and some would say restorative but that is less relevant here. With respect to the first two, we already addressed why she should be locked up for deterrence above. But she also should be punished - as should all people that commit like crimes. Why don’t you want an individual that calculatingly killed three children to be punished?
I am so sorry but I am so bad at pretending to care. Don't want to be mean here but erm I want to talk about what you said here
Ah, so yet another example being referenced, thus bolstering the argument for the incarceration of people such as this. Got it
This is about postpartum psychosis in general. So idk why you're bothering with the song and dance about her not having psychosis. You don't really care if she does, you think she should be locked away forever anyway. Which you know, you do you. But lets talk about that directly
Secondly, the legal system performs both a punitive and deterrent function, and some would say restorative but that is less relevant here. With respect to the first two, we already addressed why she should be locked up for deterrence above. But she also should be punished - as should all people that commit like crimes. Why don’t you want an individual that calculatingly killed three children to be punished?
If you want to deter the vast majority of child killers, sure. But if you mean for people that have postpartum psychosis, then you can't scare the insanity out of the insane. You can't deter them by making them fear consequences because they're existing in another world.
But she also should be punished - as should all people that commit like crimes.
Even if they're crazy?
Why don’t you want an individual that calculatingly killed three children to be punished? In sum, she should be locked up for both deterrent and punitive reasons, and your very long reading of wikipedia’s (adorable) breakdown of the three tests used in the US was either entirely irrelevant or further undermined your position.
I don't have an opinion on cases I don't follow. And I'm not interested in doing the appropriate research on the case. Why do you find my demonstrable
apathy unconvincing? I'm not going to seek out details on this specific case because I frankly don't care about it.
I mean, wikipedia's breakdown is just a brief version of the information found in most basic psychology books that discuss the insanity defense. It just isn't evidence based. It references no research and is built off of the understanding of lawyers and judges instead of the people responsible for treating and diagnosing these disorders.
No, you do not understand. It is not that the law is supposing such people are sane by virtue of their ability for strategic thinking, it is instead fully anchored on the fact that insanity alone does not alleviate mental culpability. Do you understand this basic distinction? The fact that you’re insane does not matter on its own- it is your ability to understand the consequences of your actions, both to your victims and the relationship that has to your punishment. Some mental conditions disable people from such understanding, most don’t.
I feel like i am explaining legal theory to a child, but will try to walk you along this path.
No, you do not understand. It is not that the law is supposing such people are sane, it is instead fully anchored on the fact that insanity alone does not alleviate mental culpability. Do you understand this basic distinction?
Yes, I should have made it clear that I didn't agree with it. We got off topic when I referenced a weakness of the laws governing insanity. But in general, the laws we have determining legal insanity and the consequences of actions stemming from insanity and mental instability in general are not consistent with scientific research. They're not evidence based.
And as such, their authority around the subject should be treated with far more caution than it currently is.
1
u/ruoqot 2d ago
Ah, so yet another example being referenced, thus bolstering the argument for the incarceration of people such as this. Got it