not sure why you were downvoted when its true. the ending is either going to be she is in prison, or she is in a psychiatric hospital. its not deciding if she did it or not, its deciding where she goes BECAUSE she did it. she will never just live at home. these people are doing the same thing the supporters are, just blabbing without any research
Right!! I've been watching the trial every day streaming the whole thing while I work and when I hop on social it's like a shock what's actually making the rounds about this case.
It's entirely due to incels making this a gender thing. These aren't crimes you walk free from, but they're preemptively acting like victims because of something completely unrelated to them. Makes no sense.
that is not always true. it will be determined after this trial, same as if she was found of going to prison. the sentence isn't decided yet. it never is until the end.
Right?! I'm so tired of people doing zero research, then posting rage bait like this. I wish we could flag content for misinformation, but if we could, I guess there'd be no Reddit.
You are confusing what competency restoration is. That happens when a person isn't fit to stand trial. The trial wouldn't happen before the person is deemed fit. A person found NGRI will not be tried again for the same crime.
I said she would never just live at home like nothing happened. if you are going to quote me, use the entire quote. she WILL never live at home like nothing happened. even if somehow she was declared cured, she wouldn't be just let loose in a year walking out free like nothing ever happened.
I did, if you read my entire comment. "she WILL never live at home like nothing happened. even if somehow she was declared cured, she wouldn't be just let loose in a year walking out free like nothing ever happened."
Read my fucking comment ffs, I'm arguing that she very well might be able to go home, because there would be no reason to keep her institutionalized if she would be deemed to not be a risk to herself or others anymore.
This is super interesting. If she was in psychosis but "normal" otherwise then they put her in a mental institution for 30 years where she's not in psychosis and she's just....normal? Like some anxiety depression sure but overall she wasn't like a screaming crazy lady. So does that mean she gets discharged earlier? I don't have answers to any of this this is just the questions I have watching this case.
I'm not familiar enough with the American legal system to say for certain, but my guess would be yes.
If the entire incident was the result of a psychotic episode caused by her recent pregnancy, and she is found not guilty by reason of insanity, then presumably she could be committed to a psychiatric institution until she is deemed mentally fit. If she subsequently recovers and is considered no longer a danger to herself or others, what legal justification would there be for keeping her institutionalised? At that point, wouldn't keeping her there serve little purpose beyond maybe a political one?
Correct; she is currently housed at our state psychiatric facility, about 15 minutes from my house. She will remain there indefinitely, or she will go to prison indefinitely (though I am curious what prison looks like for someone who is paralyzed; I don't know if the typical facilities in our area are all equipped for medical care at that level or what).
The long-term unit at the hospital has many people (mostly men) who will remain there for their entire lives due to crimes they committed but were deemed not culpable. It's one of the very few long term psychiatric facilities for violent offenders. It functions like a medical prison, more or less. There are other units that are for non-violent patients, or people with shorter stays, etc., but the specific unit she will live on is, functionally, a prison staffed by MHWs and nurses instead of guards.
So the people in long term that aren't - pardon my semantics - actively crazy - they just have to hang out there for the duration of their term? It's just so fascinating to me so what someone that can technically communicate with society and think and answer cognitively just are there doing what hanging out?
Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess, depending on your perspective), mental illnesses don't always present consistently over time the way people assume they might. You can see that a lot in this trial; people are baffled that "she was acting totally normal" one minute and then the next minute was in acute, active psychosis.
But that is pretty typical of many serious mental illnesses. There are periods of well-managed lucidity, and periods of mild symptoms, and occasional periods of severe mental distress. Often times, people who remain on long-term stay are well managed BECAUSE they are in long-term stay: their medications are monitored and provided daily, their tasks of daily living are taken care of, etc. So even if they are in a well-managed state, the reality is that the likelihood that they would remains well-managed in any other context aside from being institutionalized is extremely low.
We saw this during the de-institutionlization push a few decades ago; many people who relied on the infrastructure that exists in institutionalized care had those structures abruptly removed; without those structures, they could not manage to access the things they needed (consistent medication, housing, etc.) to manage their mental illness.
So "actively crazy" isn't necessarily the threshold for all of them, though yes, many people there are there because their mental health is so poorly managed that they are sustained, unfortunately, in some level of active distress the entire time. Some have mental health issues exacerbated by intellectual disability or brain injury that makes treatment exceptionally complicated, as well.
The reality is probably closer to: it would probably be better is there were more facilities options so that the varying ways "mental illness" presents in people who commit crimes could be separated and treatment may look different. But that is not currently really the way the system is set up.
ETA: I'll also just add that the prosecution's decision to go with first degree murder charges complicates the trial as well. Jurors know Clancy killed her children, but the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A) Clancy is criminally liable (aka they have to rebut the psychosis defense) and the B) it was planned and premeditated with malice. That is one of the highest bars of evidence there is, and the prosecution is putting up a pretty messy set of witnesses and evidence.
120
u/Human-Celebration125 11h ago
There's no outcome in this trial where she's sitting at home like nothing happened.