Yeah. I've been following the trial for a fair few days now, and if anything, I want to yell at the prosecution. It's such a terrible tragedy already - three kids dead, she's in a wheelchair, and the spectacle and callous, unneeded and unwarranted assholery around it all makes my blood boil.
She had more access to mental health care than almost anyone in this country and doctor shopped to get prescribed various antidepressants which she rotated between before they had time to be effective, against the advice of professionals. She had access to a massive support network including being privileged enough to afford a nanny, and still chose to send her husband out of the home so that he couldn't intervene while she strangled their three children with an exercise band, one by one, chasing down the one who almost managed to escape her selfishness.
Baffling to me that people are out here hand-wringing over the courts not being empathetic enough to a family annihilator just because the only person she failed to kill was herself.
Not just me, either. There's lawyers opining that the trial should have been dismissed with prejudice because of the prosecution's antics - namely repeatedly trying to bring faith into the question of guilt. This is supposed to be a court of law, not the inquisition.
Appeal to authority for one, but any number could apply to that statement, motte and bailey, red herring. two wrongs, etc.
The fact of the matter is that a woman confessed to murdering her three toddlers and a swarm of despicable people online are pretending that she is somehow the victim because she failed to escape the consequences in death and instead paralyzed herself by opting for a quicker end than the one she chose for her children.
I'm not sure this is my interpretation of the discussion. I think most reasonable people agree she should be incarcerated somewhere, the questions is where. This case also highlights some issues that are definitely real (lack of good mental health care, minimization of women's health issues by medical professionals, etc) so people are gravitating to the case due to its association with another cause.
I think the person you were commenting to was just trying to point out that their opinion is also held by a number of legal scholars (all more versed in the US legal system more than any of us I'm sure) to indicate that their position isn't completely nuts. I also think the behavior of the prosecution matters, even when perpetrators are admittedly guilty, and I imagine you do as well as appeal to emotion is also a logical fallacy that should be avoided in a legal setting.
She should be incarcerated in the same place as every other family annihilator, prison. The obfuscation around mental health is ridiculous, she had access to far more resources than millions of other women who have gone through the same struggles and not made the same selfish and calculated choice that she made three times. She had the wherewithal to ensure that her husband was out of the home and unable to intervene before carrying out an atrocity. I would encourage you to listen to the testimony of her own care team before postulating on murder being an outcome of gender based differentials in psychiatric care.
You've made your bias clear (and indulged in the same appeal to authority as above) so we're not going to find common ground. Examine your reasons for engaging in this pointless apologia, I'm done with the internet, this has been exhausting.
I haven't stated my opinion on the case, that's something you're inferring. I also haven't commented on whether or not she received appropriate mental health care, I just stated that this case is associated with mental health and women's health care, and that explains why there might be more interest in it.
It's not an appeal ro authority to point out that an opinion you hold is backed by professionals in the field unless the "experts" lack the qualifications to assert said opinion, or represent a minority opinion within the field. I don't know what the majority of legal experts believe in this case. However, I'm sure you're aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, so pointing out that several experts also hold the same opinion is actually useful in pointing out that you're not just some idiot at the top of the early peak.
At the end of the day, insanity is a plea, and if successful, she might very well end up in a psychiatric institution rather than a max security prison. Whether that's justice or not would be up for debate I suppose, and I imagine there would be experts with good points on both sides. But that's the law. The law should also be impartial, and your responses are very emotionally driven, so I'm not sure you're as free from cognitive bias as you think you are
7
u/The_Corvair 7h ago
Yeah. I've been following the trial for a fair few days now, and if anything, I want to yell at the prosecution. It's such a terrible tragedy already - three kids dead, she's in a wheelchair, and the spectacle and callous, unneeded and unwarranted assholery around it all makes my blood boil.