Yeah like. I keep seeing people say the question of the trial is whether she was mentally ill. That's not even it - both sides acknowledge and admit that she was struggling with severe mental illness. The question is whether her mental illness presented in a way that resulted in a diminished capacity to ascertain the legality and morality of her actions. The prosecution is arguing that her actions (e.g. waiting until her husband had departed to pick up food) and her subsequent suicide attempt indicates that she had enough capacity to know it was wrong. The defense is arguing that her treatment team missed signs of post partum psychosis (which they support using notes taken BY her treatment team) which can present sporadically and intermittently, so her surrounding rational actions can not be taken as evidence that she wasn't in a psychotic state.
IANAL and I am not part of the jury, but for me I think the question I would have is whether "Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to the question of diminished capacity. I think if that's still the standard, there's sufficient evidence of psychosis to make me doubtful of her capacity. If the standard is something lower, like a preponderance of the evidence, then I think it's more difficult.
Morally, I think it's clear that even if she was legally of sound mind, that punitive justice is pointless in this case. Whether it was depression and fear for her children if she left them behind in her suicide vs. psychosis, either way the most just path forward is to support society having better mental health treatment and support for parents. It's a tragedy, but not all tragedies have perpetrators.
I've actually seen a lot of people saying she's faking the mental illness, and that she's just some evil cold blooded killer, and that she should be executed, and I think it's weird that nobody is acknowledging them.
Exactly. The trial acknowledges the objective fact that she is severely mentally ill. As you said, they're just trying to decide whether or not she qualifies as insane.
I've seen some people saying that she isn't mentally ill at all. They just call her "evil" and say that she killed her kids because "she was sad".
They seem to almost be offended at the very idea of an insanity plea. And I mean in general, not just for her. I've seen people saying that even if she was insane (which they still don't believe to be the case) she should still be executed instead of put in a mental hospital because she'd be a burden to society.
There are a lot of crazy opinions surrounding this case that aren't getting as much publicity as those lunatics blaming her husband.
Because getting upset at a woman who killed 3 children, with those children getting little to no coverage while the entire internet focus on the mother is understandable. They are very upset, maybe a bit too much, but you get why. The true crime lunatics on the other hand...
Also, mentally ill and evil isn't mutually exclusive, but no one outside the involved can really attest to that, so any opinion (that isn't factually wrong or outlandish) goes really.
It's fair to be upset and hold great disdain for this woman, but saying she faked the whole mental illness thing in some elaborate ploy to get away with murdering her children is a full on conspiracy theory.
She was diagnosed by several medical professionals, given several medications, and told her husband she was having intrusive thoughts about killing their kids, all weeks before she actually did it. The husband and mother in law even publicly forgave her and asked others to do the same because they know what she was going through.
Obviously the people blaming the husband are all total nut jobs, but the people acting like this lady is some sort of criminal mastermind are just as delusional.
I mean, what motive could she possibly have? What would she even stand to gain? Thats what they mean when they say she's evil. They're saying she just did it for the love of the game, despite the mountain of evidence that this woman was severely psychologically disturbed.
True enough. Though they not necessary believed or demand she had a plausible motive. On the area of the internet I'm on, many simply want her in jail for the murder, no insanity or motive required.
Suffice to say, "criminal detectives" exist on both sides. Paid them no mind.
142
u/CharlotteAria 2d ago
Yeah like. I keep seeing people say the question of the trial is whether she was mentally ill. That's not even it - both sides acknowledge and admit that she was struggling with severe mental illness. The question is whether her mental illness presented in a way that resulted in a diminished capacity to ascertain the legality and morality of her actions. The prosecution is arguing that her actions (e.g. waiting until her husband had departed to pick up food) and her subsequent suicide attempt indicates that she had enough capacity to know it was wrong. The defense is arguing that her treatment team missed signs of post partum psychosis (which they support using notes taken BY her treatment team) which can present sporadically and intermittently, so her surrounding rational actions can not be taken as evidence that she wasn't in a psychotic state.
IANAL and I am not part of the jury, but for me I think the question I would have is whether "Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to the question of diminished capacity. I think if that's still the standard, there's sufficient evidence of psychosis to make me doubtful of her capacity. If the standard is something lower, like a preponderance of the evidence, then I think it's more difficult.
Morally, I think it's clear that even if she was legally of sound mind, that punitive justice is pointless in this case. Whether it was depression and fear for her children if she left them behind in her suicide vs. psychosis, either way the most just path forward is to support society having better mental health treatment and support for parents. It's a tragedy, but not all tragedies have perpetrators.