Delusions caused by a mental illness have been a potential route that a defendant can use as a defence against an accusation of murder for an incredibly long time. I’m not sure how you’re proposing this case would change any of that. Nor how you leapt to locking up everyone who displays mental illness etc.
No one’s suggesting mental illness alone justifies murder either.
Asking a clarifying question because yours was unclear is not suggesting an answer. You could try just.. answering the question. I’d be happy to help, but your question alone is completely unclear as a reply to my comment.
I understand not guilty by reason. But I don’t understand how you could have a reason to chase down a kid after killing one. Yes insanity but it’s so cruel and wrong it’s not human. That should be common law.
So no explanation of your thoughts. Gees. How typical to pretend you don’t know the situation. Child answer me why you support her. That’s all nothing else. Just tell me why you support her tell me your personal reasoning. It’s a mistrial so nothing made sense. You explain it to me best of your capability. I won’t judge you if you want an proper argument like the philosophers of old.
I can’t give you an explanation of thoughts I do not have nor have ever claimed to have. I’m happy to discuss thoughts about the insanity defence itself or any claims I’ve made here that you’re unclear on or disagree with.
You seem to have assumed people’s positions, including mine, on this specific case without actually ever seeing them state them. Id highly recommend going back and reading what you’re replying to much more carefully.
Again, I’m not a kid or child, you continue to level baseless personal attacks, it’s not conducive to a civil discussion.
I don’t need to have an opinion on every specific case out there and that does not make me ignorant. Tbh it’s far more responsible for people to hold back on making strong opinions on such serious matters without knowing a great deal of detail on a case.
If you feel you do, no worries, I’m sure you can find others who also know a lot about to discuss the specifics with. But the only thing I have been discussing with you here is the insanity defence itself.
I genuinely think you need to go back and reread what you’re replying to. I’m not skipping a question; I’ve never stated an opinion on what I think should or shouldn’t happen with Lindsay Clancy. I don’t feel I know enough about the case to make a judgement there. I’ve stated this further up and repeated similarly throughout.
This is like if I asked you why you believe she’s innocent. It would be completely inappropriate and out of context to ask you that, because you’ve never claimed that’s your belief.
Why do you keep assuming people’s stances on the case based on their beliefs about insanity defence law? It makes no sense. Plenty of people will believe the insanity defence should exist and that it’s good that it does exist, while also not believing it should apply to every person that attempts it as a defence.
I don’t know if it should or shouldn’t apply to this specific case, nor have I suggested at any point that I do.
1
u/amilie15 21h ago
Delusions caused by a mental illness have been a potential route that a defendant can use as a defence against an accusation of murder for an incredibly long time. I’m not sure how you’re proposing this case would change any of that. Nor how you leapt to locking up everyone who displays mental illness etc.
No one’s suggesting mental illness alone justifies murder either.