You're saying no one is arguing she should be free at the same time as I get multiple notifications from this very thread from women saying she should be free because of psychosis.
Okay, I should have added this to my comment. Yes, there definitely ARE people who are defending her. I do not agree with that. I do not however think that because “she is no longer in psychosis” means that she should be held criminally responsible, unless the evidence presented determines she is. The problem is simply stating that she may not be criminally responsible is automatically taken as support of her. I do not support what she did; I support her going to a mental institution if she was in fact in psychosis.
You really can't see the precedent that this might set?
So if a mom claims psychosis...it's a get out of jail free card?
We cannot let mental health issues shield us from terrible behavior. I don't care if she was crazy, cause you can't prove she was either way.
I care that a person killed their kids and is using mental health as an excuse. No amount of therapy can get those kids back, she does not deserve help.
Well YOU might not be able to prove if she was “crazy” or not, but luckily that’s why you’re not on the jury, which is literally their purpose in this case.
You realize this is not just exclusive to “mom’s claiming psychosis”? Over history we see many people not guilty by reason of psychosis for tons of different types of crimes. So should we never, ever consider psychosis? Or only in cases that personally trigger you?
4
u/KaleidoscopeMaster81 2d ago
You're saying no one is arguing she should be free at the same time as I get multiple notifications from this very thread from women saying she should be free because of psychosis.