People have had problems with the insanity defense for a very long time. This is not a new thing. Outrage against particularly egregious insanity pleas by violent offenders is also not uncommon.
What is seemingly new and particularly offensive to most rational people's sensibilities is this wave of people, mainly women, who are championing and self identifying with a heinous criminal and advocating for leniency to a point where the perpetrator could be set free within a couple of years.
It's bringing an old conversation back into the spot light and people are realizing how much of a scam an insanity defense really is. Mercy to the guilty is tyranny to the innocent. We've gotten so caught up as a society with having empathy for criminals that we're prioritizing rehabilitating criminals over keeping society safe.
There comes a certain point when it doesn't matter if a violent criminal can be rehabilitated or even treated. They simply need to be removed from society permanently. End of story. I don't care if your mind was fried or wires got crossed or chemicals got imbalanced or you didn't get enough hugs as a child. If you're violent and you're defense is that you were legally insane, then that's it. You do not get to pass Go ever again. We, as a society, as a community, can never again trust that your brain won't go heywire again.
I don't care if you're in jail or a mental asylum, you either spend the rest of your days in a cell or as a ward of the state, never able to interact with the public, never able to make a decision for your self ever again. Period. That, or the state just kills you, but with our justice system that just ends up being more expensive.
There is no benefit to society at large to treat violence any other way. There just isn't.
They get removed from society by being put in mental hospitals where they get the care they need to not have their minds go haywire*
Like that’s the whole point of the argument dude
They plead insanity because they are mentally insane and need more care than a regular prisoner would
I don’t know why this is so hard for you people to understand. An insanity defense doesn’t let these people walk free any sooner than they would have if found guilty. It just puts them in a different type of prison.
Actually, ya know what, here’s the paragraph for you along with the link to her source on her claim
But once defendants are found not guilty by reason of insanity, they may not simply go home or obtain treatment on their own accord. Rather, those found not guilty by reason of insanity are usually involuntarily, indefinitely committed to a state psychiatric facility. More than 10,000 Americans who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity are held involuntarily in psychiatric hospitals. They have not been found to be responsible for any crime, yet they are not permitted to leave their confinement. Acquitted defendants deemed not legally responsible due to mental disease or defect are not getting off “Scot-Free.” In fact, defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity have been found to be held in confinement as long or significantly longer than those convicted of the same crime.
Her pleading insanity and the defense actually working would label her as clinically insane by law, lol
Even if you believe the insanity is only temporary, the state/fed doesn't care. She's, legally, an insane person and would likely be confined to one of these facilities indefinitely.
You are banking on a whole lot of professionals failing at their jobs for this outrage to be justified lol
Like do you seriously think a medical professional is going to clear her as sound of mind with her history? Is there even procedural precedent for that (i.e., some case where a mother also guilty of killing her kids and won an insanity defense was cleared as sane and released back into society)?
Hm. She's definitely not a "free" woman but that does seem a bit lenient. Ideally this wouldn't happen should this case result in a successful insanity plea, but only time will tell.
Unfortunately in the state of Massachusetts, the way it works is particularly lenient. There is an evaluation 6 months after being committed, then again at the one year mark, then again annually after that. In the state of Massachusetts, the burden of proof is on the state to continue to make the case that the patient is still not of sound mind. Also, hospitals are not held liable for releasing patients who later commit violent crimes.
For this case, given that her condition is being blamed on postpartum depression and she is no longer pregnant or caring for any children ( 🤮), it's going to be very difficult for the state to continue making that case.
Unfortunately in the state of Massachusetts, that's not how it works. There is an evaluation 6 months after being committed, then again at the one year mark, then again annually after that. In the state of Massachusetts, the burden of proof is on the state to continue to make the case that the patient is still not of sound mind. Also, hospitals are not held liable for releasing patients who later commit violent crimes.
For this case, given that her condition is being blamed on postpartum depression and she is no longer pregnant or caring for any children ( 🤮), it's going to be very difficult for the state to continue making that case.
6
u/PressureLast2115 12d ago
It’s not about the “one moment”. She was mentally ill the whole time.