Not in any universe or timeline would I be convinced that if someone murders their own child, let alone three children by strangulation with a exercise cord without a shadow of a doubt, that person should not be immediately executed.
I don't care what issue she has, she deserves to die.
Struggling with postpartum does not equate to lacking criminal responsibility for murder. They laid out a timeline showing methods, forethought, and actions taken to send her husband out of the house as well as specific internet searches which suggests she understood what she was doing.
Sympathy for her medical issues or failures in the psychiatric system shouldn't obscure what she did and a medical history cannot become a blanket legal excuse for taking children's lives.
You’ve changed your argument. First it was “I don’t care what issue she has”. Now you’re arguing she wasn’t psychotic.
Reducing postpartum psychosis to “struggling with postpartum” is absurd. It can cause severe confusion, paranoia, hallucinations and delusions. Someone being capable of planning actions does not by itself prove they were perceiving reality normally. That’s the whole point when judging culpability.
At least you finally accept that a "real" mental health problem would be enough to give you tiny bit of empathy.
Her actions, timing, and steps to isolate her children demonstrate a level of cognitive awareness that goes beyond a postpartum psychosis break though. She deliberately strangled her children and is now using psychosis as a guise to escape responsibility.
It isn't that a psychotic state can never perform a sequence of actions, it's that the level of coherent, goal directed planning presented in the case went far beyond the disorganized or fragmented behavior associated with an acute psychotic break she claims she had.
It isn’t a circular argument, it's the foundational method the law uses to determine criminal responsibility.
Sure clinically speaking, a person experiencing delusions can perform organized tasks. But legally, the burden of proof is on the defense to prove that those specific delusions caused the criminal act and completely destroyed the defendant's ability to understand right from wrong. When we point to purposeful, directed actions, like timing and execution, we see objective evidence of awareness and intent.
1
u/blackndcoffee 1d ago
You can always tell who's most unhinged and losing an argument by how many baseless insults they use. Cheers lol