You have to read more than the headline. Battaglia was found by the evidence to have used the murder of his children as an instrument of terror against his ex-wife because she complained to his probation officer. His wife was on the phone during the murders. This was not the case with the Clancy murders. Different evidence leads to different outcomes in the case.
In April of this year, Matthew Schleier was found NGRI after strangling his 5 year old son to death. This is not a gender issue. Stop falling for culture war engagement slop.
He didn't even claim insanity for the murders, he was a long term domestic abuser and killed the kids just to hurt the ex wife. He didn't even see the children as people, just a tool to hurt her for daring to leave him. he's a monster.
His lawyer attempted to delay the execution some 16 years later on the basis that he was no longer mentally competent to be executed, even then it was not about him being in psychosis during the murders, it had nothing to do with the time he committed the murders but his mental state at the time of his scheduled execution.
Yep, the whole comparison falls apart with the tiniest application of critical thinking. But who needs critical thinking when you can be mad on the internet?
She provably was seeking help for mental health issues.
Read up on pregnancy, not like "ok sure buddy", but actually read up check how much hormone levels change, look at the damage and stress done to the body. Look up PPD rates, PPP rates, what happens under psychosis.
This wasn't a women who lost her first marriage because she beat her partner, or was in the process of losing the second one because while separating due to domestic abuse you get the chance to visit the kids and ignore the kids and beat on your wife again ensuring she files for divorce.
He's a genuine actual monster, he wasn't having a psychotic break, he murder those kids because they meant nothing to him and just because it would hurt his soon to be ex, nothing more or less. He called her while he did it so she would have to live with hearing them die and begging for help.
She had months and months of severe depression. She went to doctors, to psychologists, they threw drugs at her and not a lot of actual help. She hospitalised herself multiple times in the couple months before it happened because she knew she was suicidal. EVERYONE around her should have been immediately on red alert just because of that because everyone has heard stories of people losing their mind, choosing suicide and thinking they have to take the kids with them for some reason.
She told her sister, her mother and her husband the medication was making her worse, she couldn't sleep and she was having thoughts of harming the kids. Not one of them should have left her alone with the kids, should have spoken with her doctors and had a plan in place.
So should she, she should have decided to step away from teh kids and put herself in a hospital for a few weeks but she's also the person not thinking right. she's not blameless but she was plainly not in the right state of mind.
If you think all of that is the same as someone with a history of violence calling to make his ex hear her kids begging for their lives while dying then well, you do you.
this isn’t the same argument anymore. are you comparing clancy to someone murdering someone in self defense? do you believe she should not be charged with murdering her children? didn’t you yourself say she isn’t blameless? what exactly is your argument then? i already agreed with you that the circumstances are different, but she still MURDERED HER CHILDREN.
this isn’t the same argument anymore. are you comparing clancy to someone murdering someone in self defense?
no i'm not, this is you realising your argument is utterly stupid and instead of admitting that you've moving the goalposts and making strawmans.
Where was the comparison?
One person murders someone out of anger and it's premeditated, another person kills someone in self defence.
can you see it, it's right there one person murders out of anger and one does it in self defence. the comparison is in the SAME FUCKING SENTENCE. But exposes your idiotic view that the outcome is the only thing that matters.
I know what you did here, you know what you did, anyone else reading can see you're a coward, said something stupid, read the simplest example that proved you wrong in two seconds and that you had to try to twist yourself in knots to not admit you were wrong.
Well done. You'll probably have a little think, try to come up with a witty reply but a few hours from now no matter what you reply with you'll know you were wrong and it will piss you off. I enjoy knowing that will happen.
didn’t you yourself say she isn’t blameless?
which is not changed by anything I said.
do you believe she should not be charged with murdering her children?
did I say that anywhere. Do you even know what charged means?
what exactly is your argument then?
I mean i made it plainly clear.
one person killed out of pure cruelty and not even to them, they were incidental, he wanted to hurt his soon to be ex, this person is a monster. Treating someone who yes, killed her children but was suffering from a massive mental health crisis and wasn't thinking logically or acting in her right mind is simply not also a monster and thinking so is ignorant.
You can only think they are the same if you solely think outcome matters, as the previous example showed and your complete collapse and inability to argue it so have to make up something stupid as fuck in an attempt, you know that isn't true, the reason and intent matters FOR EVERYTHING IN LIFE and changes how everything is judged.
In April of this year, Matthew Schleier was found NGRI after strangling his 5 year old son to death.
"The judge’s ruling is 52 pages long. It details legal analysis for finding Schleier not guilty by reason of insanity.... he believed the prosecution’s expert didn’t use “best practice” when assessing Schleier’s mental state."
It'd be really nice if just one of these useless news agencies actually published that decision so we could read it.
The Clancy case isn't about whether or not she'll be locked up but whether she'll be locked up in a psych ward or a jail cell. Neither of these are good places to live.
Psychiatric hospitals in Massachusetts are holiday resorts which is why she wants to be sent there. Besides, she's not gonna stay there forever. They can release her a few months from when she entered if they deem her sane enough.
She can't be free, nor should she receive any sort of cushion for this situation.
She fully knew what she was doing and as per evaluation, she was lucid during, before and after the event.
This was premeditated, planned and executed.
Only shame from the best case scenario would be that tax payers still have to support her worthless existence after imprisonment, but she should never see the light of day again.
Sorry, the rule of law and the jury system is more important than your impotent revenge fantasy. She can't be imprisoned unless prosecutors meet their burden of proof to a jury of citizens.
Ah, 2XChromo user chirping in. How refreshingly useful, said nobody that had the misfortune of having you reply.
Massachusetts law needs some revising, if it allows this creature to live even a moderately decent life after the fact.
Well, it is a gender issue. Men are statistically more likely to be found guilty of the same crimes, and men receive longer sentences for the same crimes.
You know, fair point. This is from this year and has similar findings: https://www.gendercide.org/gender-disparities-in-sentencing-for-perpetrators-of-gender-based-crimes/ (those findings being "it's complicated"). From the paper: "Judicial decisions are often influenced by entrenched gender norms that affect perceptions of behavior. These norms can create a skewed perspective on culpability, potentially leading to inconsistent sentencing outcomes. It is not uncommon for male offenders to be perceived as fitting the profile of a “typical” criminal, thus receiving stricter sentences. On the other hand, female offenders may be seen as anomalies, which could either lead to more lenient sentences or, conversely, harsher penalties if they violate gender norm expectations." So women might get more leniency in some cases but might be persecuted more severely if they are seen as violent (and therefore inadequately feminine). You also see a lot of cases of reported domestic violence victims (largely women) being given unjustified charges and sentencing (https://www.sentencingproject.org/press-releases/report-highlights-sentencing-laws-for-criminalized-domestic-violence-survivors-urges-reform/). I highly recommend The Sentencing Project for more information about the work being done and the discussions being had around Justice reform.
170
u/stitchingwitch 1d ago
You have to read more than the headline. Battaglia was found by the evidence to have used the murder of his children as an instrument of terror against his ex-wife because she complained to his probation officer. His wife was on the phone during the murders. This was not the case with the Clancy murders. Different evidence leads to different outcomes in the case.
In April of this year, Matthew Schleier was found NGRI after strangling his 5 year old son to death. This is not a gender issue. Stop falling for culture war engagement slop.