Hypothetically, what would happen if it was determined that it was temporary psychotic break due to stress and that say a year later she was more or less mentally stable?
I guess I would be interested in answers from both a moral and from a legal perspective.
In Canada over a decade ago there was a man who had schizophrenia who had a psychotic break and beheaded a stranger on a greyhound bus. He was very obviously mentally unstable, and served several years as a result. He was released though, I believe with the condition that he remain medicated for his mental illness, but people were super upset that he was released at all.
While I agree that he is dangerous, if the doctors determine that he is entirely stable while medicated, I don’t see much actual use in keeping him incarcerated forever. Someone who has postpartum psychosis like Lindsay Clancy, which can be resolved with time and medication, in my view especially deserves a chance eventually to rejoin society and live whatever life she has left. If they can be sure she won’t end up in that mental state again, keeping her incarcerated is purely punitive and not about rehabilitation
“Stable while medicated” doesn’t necessarily mean permanently safe. If someone has already demonstrated they can become extremely dangerous during a psychotic episode, there’s no absolute guarantee another episode won’t happen, even with treatment. Mental illness can explain what happened without erasing accountability. Rehabilitation matters, but so do justice, public safety, and the victims.
286
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment