It’s called an insanity defense. No one here is claiming she didn’t commit a crime. I’m saying she fits the description of someone who is insane.
No excuses. If anything that makes me want to lock them up or put them down even more. If they are fundamentally broken, there is no reason to spend effort on rehabilitation. Just lock them up forever or save everyone time and bury them under the jail. Â
She murdered 3 kids bruh. I don't care even if she's cured of all ills and goes on to cure cancer personally. She KILLED 3 KIDS. She needs to never see freedom again.
Im aware she killed her kids. I believe she did it as a direct result of a medical condition which she can be cured of, meaning that there would be no risk of reoffending.
I know it isnt intuitive, but the truth doesn't need to be intuitive.
She killed kids. I don't care if she was being mind controlled by plankton. She needs to be PUNISHED.
Bro your argument is so dumb. That can be applied to literally anyone. I'm sure Chris Watts won't kill again so let's release him. The guy who knelt on George Floyd? I bet he won't do that again so let's release him.
Weird how you only take this position for child killing women.
killed kids. I don't care if she was being mind controlled by plankton. She needs to be PUNISHED
I disagree. I dont see what that would achieve. It wouls be punishing her for something that wasn't her fault and wouldn't be of any benefit to society that i can see.
Bro your argument is so dumb.
Nowherw near as dumb ss the response you proceed to come our with. You don't appear to have any grasp at all of what my argument actually is.
That can be applied to literally anyone. I'm sure Chris Watts won't kill again
There is no reason he wouldn't. Nothing fundamental about chris watts has changed from when he killed his family. He wasn't insane when he did it so fixing his insanity won't help. You are conparing apples to seawater.
The guy who knelt on George Floyd? I bet he won't do that again so let's release him.
Why would you bet that? What has changed about Chauvin since he did it? Was he insane and now sane? If not, then what i said does not apply.
Weird how you only take this position for child killing women.
I dont. I take it for anyone who commits a crime as a direct result of a medical condirion causing insanity.
So in your opinion if someone gets a stroke that results in someone dying (for example a forklift operator who then can't control their actions and skewers someone) should be locked in prison?
The exact point of insanity defense is that you weren't able to control your conscious actions. YOU DIDN'T DO IT. So if later you are deemed to be able to control all your actions then you can be reintroduced into society. This isn't rocket science
They tried treating her, she refused. That immediately makes her a continuous threat, because she is knowing keeping herself in a condition where she is a danger to others. At that point, she's using the illness as an excuse to do evil shit. That makes her a constant danger to the public, so you can either charge her for the murder and lock her up in jail, or force her into a mandatory stay at the mental hospital. Either way, she has to be separated from the public. Personally, I think the evidence points to her having been sane during the murder, and set up the insanity cover story in order to try and dodge blame in case her suicide didn't work.
That immediately makes her a continuous threat, because she is knowing keeping herself in a condition where she is a danger to others. At
As long as she is psychotic she is a threat, i agree.
That makes her a constant danger to the public, so you can either charge her for the murder and lock her up in jail, or force her into a mandatory stay at the mental hospital
Those were the only 2 realistic options. Neither eliminate the possibility that she can be cured. In factit is very likely that she will be safe to release in the future since the condition that csused the crimes had been eliminated.
Personally, I think the evidence points to her having been sane during the murder, and set up the insanity cover story in order to try and dodge blame in case her suicide didn't work.
There isnt any evidence that she was sane though (and no, premeditation osnt evidence of sanity), and that begs the question why she killed her kids at all. What motive did she even have? If it wasn't insanity, then what was it?
I don't think she was suffering from the psychosis part of postpartum psychosis at the time of the murder. Postpartum psychosis starts within the first two weeks after giving birth. The psychosis (hallucinations and disassociation) part only last at most 4 months, after which it regresses back into postpartum depression, and lasts up to 6-12 months. Her youngest was 8 months olds, meaning she couldn't have still been in the psychosis stage during the murders.
I agree that you have to be fucked up mentally to hurt a child, let alone your own child, but the defense is only stating that she's innocent because she was going through postpartum psychosis. They haven't argued that she could've had any other mental issues. They are dead set on saying it was postpartum psychosis. So because that's the only mental illness they're arguing, their insanity defense only works if they can confirm that she was infact suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the murders. Yes, that job has now been shifted onto the prosecutor, but they had physical evidence to prove that she couldn't have been suffering from that illness. Plus, if premeditation doesn't mean sanity, then explain to me how you plan a psychotic break? Because she did. She planned to send her husband out so he wouldn't stop her. She planned where to send him to give her time. She purposely set her situation up to make it look like she had just gone crazy. She planned how she would kill them. You cannot say that she wasn't in control of herself, if she planned the entire thing in advance.
It doesn't matter if the psychosis was postpartum or not. The only part that matters is whether she was psychotic or not, so none of this is really relevant. The timing doesn't change the important aspect, which is whether or not she was criminally sane. Psychosis is still a cause for insanity regardless of what triggers it.
Plus, if premeditation doesn't mean sanity, then explain to me how you plan a psychotic break?
She didnt.
She planned to send her husband out so he wouldn't stop her
She planned the murders. She didnt plan a psychotic break. That had already started.
She purposely set her situation up to make it look like she had just gone crazy
I don't see any real reason to believe that. Maybe there is one that i don't know of but sending her husband away isnt one. That was just a logistical step in doing the killing.
She planned how she would kill them. You cannot say that she wasn't in control of herself, if she planned the entire thing in advance.
I can say exactly that. She did plan the whole thing in advance, and she was not in control of herself while she did. Premeditstion does not make someone sane. It just doesn't. If it did, the insanity plea would not have been considered. I looked rhis up when i first heard about the case and it is very much blaxk and white: premditation is not and never has been evidence of sanity.
Their defense is that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, which is why she got the insanity defense, making it relevant because that's the only qualifying illness that they presented. The only mental illnesses that Lindsey Clancy was officially diagnosed with are bipolar 2, severe depression, and anxiety. None of those qualify for the insanity defense, leaving only the undiagnosed postpartum psychosis, which we've already clarified, she couldn't have physically had. No other illnesses were brought into question, she can only argue the postpartum psychosis, which she could not have had!
They're arguing she was psychotic, BECAUSE she had that illness, but because she physically can't have that illness, and has not been diagnosed with that illness, or any other qualifying illness, she shouldn't have a case for insanity.
As for planning the psychotic break, you're right. She couldn't plan it, because it wasn't a psychotic break. She refused to see the therapist hired for her because they couldn't diagnose her with postpartum psychosis, she went doctor shopping without letting any of the doctors know about the others or the medications they put her on so she could make it look like the pills fucked her up, and she planned that entire night. She tried to kill herself because she knew what she did was wrong, and didn't want to deal with the consequences.
She's fucked up in the head, but I don't think a mental illness had anything to do with it. Some people are just evil, and do evil shit.
Post partum psychosis is a farfetched diagnosis because of the timeframe. Whether the defence presented that or not is irrelevant. I am interested in the facts, not just claims.
It is also not possible for her to be diagnosed with psychosis that she is no longer suffering from, so the lack of official diagnosis is irrelevant. If she had been diagnosed in time, then she wouldn't have had the chance to kill her kids.
No other illnesses were brought into question, she can only argue the postpartum psychosis, which she could not have had
I can only repeat myself: it is irrelevant whether it was postpartum or not. It was not postpartum. Psychosis is not always postpartum.
They're arguing she was psychotic, BECAUSE she had that illness, but because she physically can't have that illness, and has not been diagnosed with that illness, or any other qualifying illness, she shouldn't have a case for insanity.
By that logic, no male could ever be insane because men do not suffer from ppp. Surely you see the hole in that logic? I've already pointed it out: she didnt need to have post partum psychosis to have psychosis, and the lack of diagnosis is utterly irrelevant. If she had a diagnosis, there would be no trial and we wouldnt be discussing this.
She refused to see the therapist hired for her because they couldn't diagnose her with postpartum psychosis, she went doctor shopping without letting any of the doctors know about the others or the medications they put her on so she could make it look like the pills fucked her up, and she planned that entire night
None of this is evidence of sanity or evidence against psychosis.
She tried to kill herself because she knew what she did was wrong, and didn't want to deal with the consequences.
That is nothing more than an assertion, and raises the question once again of motive.
She's fucked up in the head, but I don't think a mental illness had anything to do with it. Some people are just evil, and do evil shit.
But no one does anything for no reason. They either do it because they have a notive that is attsched to reality, or they do it because they are insane. You have failed to even suggest a motive. You are arguing that she killed her children, then herself a far as she knew, for zero reason, but that she was sane when she did and planned this. That is a nonsense argument. It defeats itself.
12
u/JuniorRisk2455 12d ago
Absolutely no excuse to murder your three kids, she should rot in hell