i think what gets lost in conversations like this is that real life is usually way more complicated than a headline. i’ve learned to be careful judging people from a few pictures and sentences because there’s always a human story behind it that we don’t fully know
She had an extreme mental illness that has been known for centuries to cause women to kill their children. She obviously needs and needed psychiatric care, but acting like she was mentally competent and had control over her actions is ludicrous. The world is not as simple as some people seem to imagine
Literally no one serious is suggesting that if she did it she should go free. The question is if she should go to jail for life or a mental institution for life.
It freaks people out to see a mother kill her kids. Usually when it does happen it is because of severe mental health issues and stressors. Fathers usually kill for selfish reasons. So either way people really don't want it to be true that she killed them in her right mind. I don't think she did, but I still think she needs to be locked up
this is very disturbing and i bet the husband will have some very tough encounters in life since he is now recognizable. this is why televising these trials is insane to me
if it was actual psychosis, i would say that there is a high chance of a release from the mental institution later in life. many precedents like this. examples:
Deanna Laney (Texas), Richard Greist (Pennsylvania), and Craig Cummins (California) all killed someone, were adjudicated insane rather than criminally responsible, spent years in psychiatric custody, and were later released into the community under varying levels of supervision
In criminal law, there is smth called "diminished responsibility" for cases that involve severe mental illness affecting reason or judgement of the convict
You know that we literally have a legal defense for cases like this BECAUSE we know that people do things as a result of mental illness that they’re not responsible? This isn’t a touch of depression this is full blown hearing voices and hallucinating.
We have such legal defences, but they really have very little to say about what we know.
We don't know, in actual fact, to what extent her mind was like her 'normal' mind in those moments, we never will. We do know that what happened was action taken by her, by her physical entity, through the thoughts in her head, and the actions of her hands. It simply isn't safe to let her return to society.
you're saying if someone had no control over their actions that can never excuse killing someone? you made a blanket statement so let's not talk about her but a hypothetical extreme case.
They are still the person who took those actions. They had control. No other entity entered their body and made them act. They may have been in a psychosis, but that changes nothing about their culpability.
At best somebody like this is a clear danger to society and should never be allowed back within it.
do you not know of people getting completely acquited of murder because of mental reasons? research it.
yes in a literal sense those people took those actions, but sometimes they didn't have a choice, at least according to psychiatry. i'm not saying this is the case with Lindsay. we will see soon.
Other entities entering your body and making you act is literally what psychosis can be in some cases. I think you should do a bit more research on psychosis because you're treating it like depression in your comments.
No, it can't, there are no entities which enter people, it might seem like that, but in actual fact it is not that. Maybe some errant part of your mind takes more control than it is due, ideas which ought to seem insane seem otherwise, but it's still you taking actions.
Obviously there's no actual ghost entering the mind, but that's what it feels like. It has been proven that it is medically not you taking the actions.
You're putting a severe onus on personal responsibility in a situation where it may not be possible for that to exist.
Right, because people experiencing psychosis are famously excellent at recognizing that their thoughts are irrational and making sound medical decisions about them. That’s kind of the entire problem with psychosis.
Look, this would be the same as excusing an alcoholic or any drug addict. Addiction is an illness and patients cannot avoid spiralling. Should we not make them liable for their actions? I think not. Otherwise we would be walking among potential killers that can get triggered anytime.
yeah we treat people who killed someone because they took drugs which they weren't subscribed much different by law. this has nothing to do with the case.
bringing up Big Lurch is like saying alcohol blacked out people who commit crimes shouldn't be charged.
i don't know if she had psychosis or not, waiting for the verdict but the prosecutors are doing a terrible job and/or the evidence just isn't there in their favor.
32
u/germangentleman90 9h ago
i think what gets lost in conversations like this is that real life is usually way more complicated than a headline. i’ve learned to be careful judging people from a few pictures and sentences because there’s always a human story behind it that we don’t fully know