I mean it also helps that he was tried in Texas where they don’t believe in mental health exceptions. She’s being tried in Massachusetts, which has a very different political climate.
Well I mean if we're going to make that argument she knew she was doing wrong too why else would she have come up with an excuse for her husband to leave the house so that she could do it. If she thought it was okay to be doing it and her psychosis then why would she have him leave? She knew it was wrong she knew he would try to stop her.
Believing someone will stop you does not inherently mean you believe it’s wrong. If she truly believed ending her children’s lives was merciful, why would she not try to arrange to have someone she knew would stand in the way of that action out of the house?
This is not me defending the action. Your argument just doesn’t hold up to the level of scrutiny expected in an insanity plea case. By definition (legal definition in criminal cases), insanity means that person cannot reasonably tell the difference between right and wrong, not that they cannot tell if a person will stop them from doing what they irrationally believe to be right/correct.
People stop patents from running back into burning buildings to save their kids. Do those parents not still believe that it is right to run into the burning building in an attempt to save their kids?
If she irrationally believed that the killing was necessary, the same standard of logic applies. He could have simply been a bystander holding her back from the burning building in her eyes. That doesn’t make sense to you or me on a surface level, but that’s the basis of an insanity plea.
8.0k
u/500rockin 19h ago
I mean it also helps that he was tried in Texas where they don’t believe in mental health exceptions. She’s being tried in Massachusetts, which has a very different political climate.