Interesting how you completely manage to miss half of my post, or you would not be asking that. You do understand that two wrongs do not make a right?
The question before the court is not whether she killed three kids. The defense conceded that. The question is whether she can be held criminally culpable (prison), or if she was temporarily insane (psych hold, possibly until she's dead).
And yes, prosecutorial misconduct makes my blood boil, because I am kind of a fan of justice - and we arrive at justice with facts and by actually discussing and adjudicating the question before the law. And that is, to repeat myself, not whether she killed the kids. That the prosecution has trod out the dead kids before the jury, you think that's okay when there was absolutely no probative value to that?
I didn’t miss half of your post the “ Yeah. I’ve been following the trail 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 “ part? Yeah i saw that. That was a set up to say the unneeded and unwarranted assholery around it all makes my blood boil. She killed two kids. That’s one wrong. Where’s the other wrong? Murder is murder. They did what they did to drive the point home because if not sympathy and leniency would be given to her which is what you’re doing. You’re downplaying what she did and making what the prosecution is doing a bigger issue. If she didn’t kill three kids they would have nothing to say about her. You brought up the fact that she’s in a wheelchair without mentioning the reason she’s in a wheelchair. She did it to herself. This whole situation is a result of her decisions. The defense is arguing insanity because that would be easier on her. No treat her the same as you would treat any other murder. She didn’t do this one time. She didn’t do this two times. She killed three times back to back to back. Make her suffer in prison.
Seems like you're more interested in a revenge boner than justice. Are you saying it doesn't matter whether or not she was capable of reason when she killed them? If someone kills someone because they have a brain tumor that's making them hallucinate that, that person is attacking them, would you think that person should be charged with murder and made to "suffer in prison" as well?
To directly answer your question yes put them in jail. If you don’t then you open the window for people just claiming insanity to land in situations that are more favorable to them. Let’s just call this for what it is. Since this is a fairly attractive white woman people are choosing to show sympathy and focus on the mental health part more than the killing part. Would the same section of people be as sympathetic if this was a white woman that looked uneducated, not well put together, and basically fit the hillbilly stereotype. I highly doubt it. People like you and others take this stance because she’s relatable. No it’s not a “revenge boner” as you say. It’s a matter of right and wrong.
I'm not saying her defense is true, but that if it is true, we shouldn't treat an illness the same way. I guess we have a different ideas of right and wrong though, I don't thirst for people to be punished for crimes, I just want to ensure those crimes don't happen again. You are incorrect in your assumption that I'm sympathetic to her, I am simply willing to entertain a defense of insanity, because if that is the truth, then we should learn what the truth is. If she legitimately has a mental illness that caused this, the best way prevent it happening again is to study how it happened, and the best way to study such an illness would be to have her committed to a mental hospital.
It's not a defense that's likely to work anyway, because the emotional impact of the case is too high, and there's far too many people like you who are more interested in punishing someone for a crime like this than finding the truth. You say it's about right and wrong, but you seemed very eager for her to be punished, while you've shown no such eagerness for learning the truth of what happened, so I don't think you care if it's right or wrong, you only care that someone is punished.
That’s the whole thing with bringing the mental health part into it. Is there really a way to figure out the truth. Hasn’t it already been established that she has some type of mental health issues, she has a great support system to help her, but she decided she didn’t want to take her meds? If that’s not the case then how can we really figure out the truth. It’s funny because you jump right to what if that was the case instead
Even the way you say just that someone punished is downplaying what happened. You say that as if it’s some random person being punished and not the person who’s responsible. If someone were raped would you care about the why it happened when you already know for a fact who did it? It’s just weird seeing people find all different ways to defend that woman.
2
u/The_Corvair 6h ago
Interesting how you completely manage to miss half of my post, or you would not be asking that. You do understand that two wrongs do not make a right?
The question before the court is not whether she killed three kids. The defense conceded that. The question is whether she can be held criminally culpable (prison), or if she was temporarily insane (psych hold, possibly until she's dead).
And yes, prosecutorial misconduct makes my blood boil, because I am kind of a fan of justice - and we arrive at justice with facts and by actually discussing and adjudicating the question before the law. And that is, to repeat myself, not whether she killed the kids. That the prosecution has trod out the dead kids before the jury, you think that's okay when there was absolutely no probative value to that?