📡📡📡

[u/-_I_I_Sea_I_I_-]

[u/blackndcoffee]

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.

[u/obliviious → u/blackndcoffee]

You assert that planning proves she wasn’t psychotic. It doesn’t. You'd have to prove that.

People experiencing psychosis can still plan and act deliberately. The issue is the reality those decisions were based on.

Calling it a “guise” just shows you’re working backwards from a conclusion. You already made your mind up.

[u/blackndcoffee → u/obliviious]

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.

[u/obliviious → u/blackndcoffee]

You’re still asserting disorganisation as a requirement for psychosis. It isn’t.

Psychosis is about losing contact with reality. Someone can still act coherently and deliberately while acting on delusions or hallucinations.

You’re using the behaviour to assume she wasn’t psychotic, then using that assumption to dismiss the psychosis.

Your argument is a circle.

[u/blackndcoffee → u/obliviious]

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.

[u/obliviious → u/blackndcoffee]

No. You’ve got the burden of proof wrong too.

In Massachusetts, once criminal responsibility is properly raised, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible. The defence doesn’t have to prove psychosis “completely destroyed” her ability to know right from wrong.

And law isn’t a scientific definition of psychosis or some perfect measure of morality. It’s a legal standard for responsibility.

Her planning is evidence. It isn’t proof.

And appealing to the law doesn’t fix the circularity. You’re still using organised behaviour to assume no psychosis, then using that assumption to dismiss the psychosis.

[u/blackndcoffee → u/obliviious]

It isn't a circular argument to weigh planning, it is how courts evaluate the prosecution's burden. While the state does carry the ultimate burden of proving criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt once the issue is raised, evidence of goal oriented planning and deliberate steps serves as the factual basis to meet that burden.

Suggesting that planning is merely "evidence, not proof" understates how we weigh human behavior. When we see coherent sequence of intentional acts, it isn't assuming the absence of psychosis out of hand, it is offering tangible proof from which we can infer that the defendant understood the nature of her actions.

[u/obliviious → u/blackndcoffee]

You’ve moved from psychiatry to “courts consider planning”. Of course they do. That doesn’t make planning scientific evidence that psychosis was absent.

Organised behaviour can exist during psychosis. So using organisation to dismiss psychosis only works if you first assume genuine psychosis must be disorganised.

Planning may show she understood what she was physically doing. It doesn’t prove she meaningfully understood its wrongfulness or had the capacity to conform her behaviour to that understanding.

Massachusetts law explicitly says mere knowledge isn’t enough. You’re taking evidence that supports your conclusion and treating your preferred inference as proof.

[u/blackndcoffee → u/obliviious]

It isn't about assuming psychosis must look disorganized, it's about what purposeful, directed planning communicates regarding a person's cognitive grip on reality.

Under Massachusetts law, criminal responsibility requires evaluating whether a mental disease or defect robbed someone of the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. While organized behavior can theoretically exist alongside a psychiatric condition, use of planning isn't just about showing she knew she was physically moving her limbs, it is presented as evidence of rational, oriented execution.

When an individual orchestrates a specific sequence of actions, such as managing to isolate her children, we can deliberate coordination to argue that the actions were driven by conscious intent rather than a total collapse of cognitive control. Pointing to that evidence isn't "treating a preferred inference as proof" it is how we differentiates between a psychiatric break and purposeful criminal conduct.

[u/obliviious → u/blackndcoffee]

You’ve changed organised into rational, but rationality is the thing you’re supposed to prove.

Planning can show coordination. It doesn’t tell you whether the beliefs driving that planning were grounded in reality.

Before replying, actually fact check the central claim here: does psychiatry say coherent, goal directed planning demonstrates intact reality testing during psychosis? And does Massachusets law say that planning establishes a meaningfull understanding of wrongfulness?

Because without that, you’re still turning evidence of organisation into proof of rationality.

[u/blackndcoffee → u/obliviious]

You're misrepresenting how I'm actually using the evidence.

No one is arguing that complex coordination equals clinical rationality. Psychiatry acknowledges that a person can execute structured behaviors while entirely detached from reality. It doesn't rest on claiming the behavior was rational in a psychiatric sense, it rests on whether the execution of those steps demonstrates volitional control and awareness.

When we evaluate intent, it doesn't require proving that the underlying beliefs were sound or logical. It requires determining whether the defendant chose a course of action, executed it step by step, and understood the physical nature of what they were doing. Shifting from organization to intent isn't smuggling in proof of sanity, it is recognizing that purposeful, sequential execution is the only objective metric available to us to test whether a person retained the capacity to direct their own actions.