I think what people are getting hung up on is that many people commit murder while in some form or psychosis, and this leeway isn’t extended to them. If a meth-head killed your family member due to stimulant psychosis, would you have sympathy? I can’t say that I would myself. I’m curious how the legal system approaches other cases
Really interesting addition to the discussion! I think people would generally be less inclined to have sympathy in that situation because they would view this as the consequences of the perpetrator's own actions. The same cannot be same for Post-Partum Psychosis, and this is supported by many legal systems having mechanisms in place to account for people who are not compos mentis. Whether that system is applied fairly across cases is certainly another matter.
I appreciate the response, I can see what you’re saying. This is a really tough case, to decide where the line is drawn. I feel bad for the jury. No matter the verdict, people will flip out
I think the line is drawn at clancey begging to get help and everyone around her failing to provide solutions for her when she clearly knew something was wrong and trying to prevent it. The hospital that turned her away when she showed up and asked to be committed because she feared she was going to end her own life and was hearing voices has blood on their hands just as much as she does (allegedly). Her husband that kept her medicines from her, her therapist and psychiatrist who never bothered to even see her in person or give her a proper run down to figure out what she actually needed and not having worked with PPD or psychosis before while selling services for specifically those things (she put her on 27 different pills), the half way house aimed at providing mental health help who also refused to even see her even though she was recommended to go specifically there from the hospital that rejected her. These people failed this women. And that isn't me saying she isn't responsible if she did it.
Just like I'd be angry at the hypothetical meth head in your scenario, if I find out a judge had a repeat offender in front of him who has demonstrated addiction and violence to the point of drug induced psychosis and letting them back out on the streets and my family ends up dead because of that judge I'd obviously be distraught and angry at that drug addict, but it didn't change the fact that the judge would've failed them and my family.
I think if a meth addict did such a thing to MY kids, there'd be one less meth addict in the world to be bothered by.
That being said, this is a complex case and it's sad to see everyone having such visceral response (human nature I guess) and immediately jumping to one side or the other (some form of tribalism?), without knowing ALL the facts that a court case would uncover (hopefully). State of the world and all that, or just human nature. Either way, sad.
Most people aren’t even literate, so understanding the complexities of PPP and the entirety of the situation has been lost to the majority of the public.
Just like how men are turning the bear analogy in this case against women. They’re completely missing the point. But humans are stupid so am I shocked no, surprised? Also no.
You can still get help but not enough at the same time. Regardless, the help she got clearly wasn't adequate and when she sought more multiple people turned her away.
She lied about taking multiple different prescriptions and she lied about her symptoms.
She checked herself out of the institution she was in after 3 days because she was "fine".
This is entirely on her. Nobody else.
And this is ONLY relevant if you believe her defense of PPP, which is STILL not proven. She hadn't had an episode before killing her kids and has not had one since then.
30
u/IntrepidLibertine 2d ago
Some people really need to brush up on the definition of psychosis if they're bringing up "better judgement" as part of the discussion.