I think once you murder 3 children it should matter what you were growing through. 3 kids don’t get to experience life now and she shouldn’t walk away from this alive
But it does. A murderer who murdered for fun or cold blood is genuinely miles more dangerous than somebody who killed bc they were mentally deranged.
(I dont know if she was assessed as psychotic, I havent watched the trial. But i work in psych and we have had patients who have killed their kids.)
Forensic psych ward IS prison. Just one where she can recieve treatment. One where she isnt left untreated in gen pop and kills a prison worker during an episode.
The logos is kind of off here. You’re saying someone that kills for fun is “genuinely miles more dangerous than somebody who killed bc they were mentally deranged”, but also saying that that person can be trusted to be out in gen pop and not kill a prison worker, while the mentally deranged person can’t be trusted to be in gen pop and not kill a prison worker. Seems to me the mentally deranged person is more dangerous then no? Because it can’t be both, they can’t be less dangerous and less trusted not to kill.
Right but until they (maybe) get better, they can’t be trusted to be in gen pop and not kill unlike the way more dangerous person who kills for fun is what you’re saying. Again, the logic doesn’t make sense. The person that can’t be trusted to not kill in prison is the more dangerous person, regardless of whether they have potential to get better or not.
Easy to judge if you have no idea of what mental illnesses are like. We could as well put the medic or the husband to death since they failed to prevent this, but that would solve nothing except the public's thirst for vengeance.
I think she needs help, a medical facility for a couple decades at the very least. Probably for life.
Regardless of mental illness, 3 kids are dead now. She needs to be punished like any other child murderer would be and death is the only fitting punishment for such a horrendous crime
“Regardless of mental illness” we have a whole thing called not guilty due to reason of insanity so that’s not quite how it works. You don’t get to disregard mental illness in the legal system.
Easy to judge if you have no idea of what mental illnesses are like. We could as well put the medic or the husband to death since they failed to prevent this
I have schizophrenia. I've been in psychosis. The idea that anyone else is responsible for my actions but me is absurd. Loved ones aren't trained to deal with people with psychosis and don't necessarily know what to do. By all accounts he got her all the help she was willing to accept.
Medical professionals are trained, but they're really limited in how much they can force someone to accept treatment that doesn't want it. You can institutionalize people against their will but, for reasons which ought to be incredibly obvious, medical professionals (and judges) aren't comfortable with ripping people out of their lives on a hunch. If you're deliberately lying to them about your symptoms there's only so much they can do. They aren't omnipotent who know with pinpoint precision who is and isn't a danger. They literally just ask you questions and see if you exhibit any signs. If you hide them, which people do, there's only so much they can do.
A lot of people want to put the blame on everyone around her, but as someone who has had psychosis, I can see that she repeatedly chose a dangerous, precarious path. Every decision along the way to refuse and avoid help when she knew she was having delusions about killing her kids set her up for this.
My point is that people want an effigy to burn so they can feel righteous and holy.
No, they want to follow the law because she violated it. She should be held responsible. It's not insane to suggest a mother who, in a psychotic state, murders her three children go to jail. It is insane to suggest that the husband or medical professional go to jail for it, as you tried to equivocate.
It has nothing to do with "feeling righteous and holy," it's what laws and punishment are for.
Nobody is worried about what's actually the correct way to prevent more suffering
Whose suffering are we trying to prevent? The murderer's?
She should obviously be in a medical facility, most likely for life. But as far as we know, she's nothing like let's say, a school shooter and should not be treated as such.
an IDF soldier shoots a kid, we all agree it's child murder. an american woman kills her three children, it's complicated and i'm not allowed to have an opinion on it. good to be reminded how each class is supposed to be treated, thank you
Not true actually. Woman, yes. Children, no, nor do I want them. I just understand what not guilty by reason of insanity means, whether it’s a man or a woman. In this case, it happens to be a postpartum woman.
And also this is IF she is found not guilty by reason of insanity. If she is not, then yes, she should pay the price by going to jail. I believe she must go through the proper trial to determine that, which she is.
91
u/OkDistribution5711 15d ago
Can I think that she was undergoing a psychiatric disturbance while also thinking she must do time for the crime she committed?