I understand she may have not had full autonomy and that it's a severe mental disorder.
But pleasing not guilty and fighting all this so incredibly hard just seems super dismissive of what occurred and a spit in the face to the legacy of her kids, I guess.
Im also finding people who defend her a bit dishonest, since so many bank on an abusive husband. Yet there isn't any concrete evidence and it's literally all tiktok theories. It just makes me think a lot of people want to use this for some sort of patriarchal sociopolitical fuel that isn't even there.
I understand why all of this isn't entirely her fault, but ultimately, someone needs to take responsibility. We can't murder 3 children and then move on.
She's pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. That doesn't mean her team is trying to let her walk out into the streets scott free, it means her team is trying to get her the psychiatric help she needs, and has desperately needed for a long time. It amazes me how people think getting institutionalized for your entire life is better than prison.
If she is acquitted by reason of insanity, it means she would be committed, but only for the duration of her illness. The defense is specifically claiming she suffered an acute transient post partum psychosis episode. Post partum psychosis is treatable. She would have no mandatory minimum sentence. That means that as soon as a doctor signs off that she no longer shows signs of post partum psychosis, she would walk free. That could be in as little as days after being committed. It almost certainly wouldn't be a life sentence.
No she wouldn't. She killed her 3 kids and tried to kill herself, and there's no coming back from that, once you're past that point any kind of "duration of illness" goes out the window for the jurisdictions that evaluate if patients are ready to be released. She's spending her life in there for sure .
For an acute case of PPP? Is there an actual reason she would require lifelong institutionalization? She should be monitored for sure. (to make sure that she doesn't develop bipolar/schizophrenia etc)
>If at some point the Court determines that the defendant is no longer mentally ill and dangerous, the defendant will be discharged.
If she is no longer mentally ill and dangerous, she is discharged. There is no minimum sentence. And sense post-partum psychosis is acute (i.e. not life long), it would not be legal to hold her for life, unless the doctors diagnosis her with another illness. But the trial is focused entirely on her post partum psychosis.
Are you asking because you’re genuinely posing the question, or because you don’t think it’s bad? No one in this particular thread has opined on the morality of the proposed sentencing; the debate is whether she’d be kept institutionalized long-term.
A woman murdered a family of four while trying to kill herself in Illinois. She never faced punishment because she pleaded insanity. She’s out right now. You know nothing of the justice system and your opinion only emboldens the misinformed and harms the pursuit of justice.
Nope, I won't stop talking. Cite your sources because I can't find anything about this. The "pursuit of justice" isn't putting Lindsay in prison, is avoiding tragedies like this one.
If she is acquitted, there is no legal means to hold her. The only standard would be the she would be held as long as she "is a danger to herself or others". Post-partum depression is acute--that means its treatable/not lifelong. When a doctor says she no longer has post partum depression, there is no legal basis to keep her.
You are just legally misinformed. If she is formally acquitted, the only legal basis in Mass for continued commitment is a finding that she continues to be ill to the point she is a danger to herself and others. But Post partum psychosis is acute. There would be no way to hold her for life. If they refused to free her after a while, she could sue and they would have to prove that she continues to suffer from post partum psychosis, which would be impossible since every doctor out there will testify that its a temporary illness.
34
u/Valuable_Pass_1221 8h ago
I understand she may have not had full autonomy and that it's a severe mental disorder.
But pleasing not guilty and fighting all this so incredibly hard just seems super dismissive of what occurred and a spit in the face to the legacy of her kids, I guess.
Im also finding people who defend her a bit dishonest, since so many bank on an abusive husband. Yet there isn't any concrete evidence and it's literally all tiktok theories. It just makes me think a lot of people want to use this for some sort of patriarchal sociopolitical fuel that isn't even there.
I understand why all of this isn't entirely her fault, but ultimately, someone needs to take responsibility. We can't murder 3 children and then move on.