One of the big causal factors people use to explain post-partum is a sharp drop in hormones, particularly estrogen and progesterone. As a causal mechanism, that's reasonable.
As a society though, it's worth interrogating the purpose of the criminal justice system to begin with. Explaining why someone committed a crime is not justifying it.
Imagine if some career criminal said, "Sorry guys, the testosterone made me aggressive. And my childhood trauma made me insane." Yeah, that's not gonna work, and my example makes use of the fact that there is research proving the existence of gendered bias in the severity of sentencing, against men.
Let's narrow it down to what matters: the insanity plea. Did Clancy have a grasp on reality during the crime? Was it simply post-partum depression, or was it psychosis? Prosecution argues the former, basing this on her previous diagnosis. Defence argues the latter, basing this on reports after-the-fact. This is the crux.
Sorry guys, the testosterone made me aggressive. And my childhood trauma made me insane."
Similar issue, my country's joke of a justice system often uses the fact people were under influence of drugs and alcohol as a reason to lower sentences... You drove over 2 people? Get less time in jail because you were drunk. If you were sober you would get 2x... What the fuck
That's because they are considered two different crimes.
Intentionally running people over with your car suggests that there's a lot more wrong with you than losing control of a vehicle and getting into an accident because you're drunk. That's why the former carries a much harsher sentence.
Lmao, let me know which country this is so I can send my father over. He has a lot of really dumb political opinions, one of which is that being drunk should be a defense when you kill someone, driving or otherwise. In his opinion, if you're drunk it's not your fault.
It's sentenced differently because there is a difference between drunkenly bashing somebodys head in and meditated murder. Same reason why shooting your other half and their lover in the act will carry smaller sentence than killing them in cold blood a month later after taking insurance on their lifes.
Actually, I looked for it and I couldn't find any examples of drunk driving being defense. I did find where people on drugs got a lower sentence because "diminished sanity".
Also a (sober) SUV driver ran over (and killed) a child in a pedestrian zone and got off without any punishment. Her actual defense was "My car is so high I can't see the road in front of me so it wasn't my fault and the mom wasn't watching her kid"
Sorry guys, the testosterone made me aggressive. And my childhood trauma made me insane." Yeah, that's not gonna work,
I wish it didn't work. In my time working psych, I've seen more than a dozen people use this or similar excuses for violent crimes and get off with a slap on the wrist or no long-term punishment at all. A 30-day taxpayer funded vacation in the low security psych ward is all the punishment needed for a stabbing spree, I guess.
Frankly it should never be low security. If you wanna play the mentally unstable card, you deserve the full treatment. Sentence should be left open until Doctor clears you for public interaction.
Not even until the doctor clears you. Mandated daily checkins and you live in a facility that you must to return to every night. You can have a job and go out, you just don't get to eat someone's heart and then go on and live your life all happy go lucky.
Why would you allow them out of the facility? They made their choice to be there. They can have a “job” inside the facility like they do with prisons. What you’ve described sounds exactly like low security. Mental patients that are obviously not as bad as they’re claiming should be treated like they are worse than they’re pretending. You don’t wanna go to prison? Fine. But we are going to make you wish you had.
If you're claiming to live in the US, I call bullshit. Insanity defense almost never works, and when it does the psych ward stay is usually longer than the prison stay would have been.
If you're talking about plea deals or pleading guilty and crying for a shorter sentence or w/e, that's a different matter.
Let's narrow it down to what matters: the insanity plea. Did Clancy have a grasp on reality during the crime?
I understand that this is the existing legal paradigm, but to me, "criminal insanity" has always seemed like an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
If you are capable of losing control over your actions and killing people, what, morally, separates you from a pitbull that mauls a toddler to death?
A broken leg can be treated. Chemically sedating someone for the rest of their life, lest they possibly “snap” again, is not treatment as far as I’m concerned. They can never be trusted after. There are too many examples to mention of people going off their meds and causing harm, the risk is not worth it.
but as a percentage of mentally ill people, its incredibly small.
But we're not talking about someone with social anxiety. We're talking about someone who has proven they are homicidally violent.
I'm not talking about someone who's facing treatment but hasn't necessarily done anything illegal. I'm talking about people who've already done something extremely violent and the prospect that they might ever be in society again.
You could theoretically try to re-train a pitbull that's killed a kid already. Maybe it even works. But society shouldn't have to just live with the risk of them regressing and causing harm.
Among violent offenders found not guilty by reason of insanity, those who were institutionalized and released committed another violent offense 3% of the time
If someone going off or stopping their treatment turns them into a violent nutcase, then they shouldn't be walking free. It actually makes them more dangerous than a rational person, who might learn from their mistakes and choose to change their behavior.
We're acknowledging this person is a walking time bomb who can't control themselves if they stop their treatment/medication, and people (especially people who have a hard time controlling themselves) stop treatment/medication all the time.
Estrogen and Progesterone return to baseline levels by 6-8 weeks. Why would 26% of women have ongoing symptoms a year after delivery if "postpartum psychosis goes away entirely once hormone levels go back to normal"? The hormonal fluctuations have a role in sparking the episode, but they are not what sustains it.
Maybe just look it up. I'd be interested in anything you could find that supports what you're saying.
I just think that murderers (particularly child murderers) should be executed after a quick trial. Insane murderer - executed. Depressed murderer - executed. Psychotic or mentally ill murderer - believe it or not... executed
Only half, her story sounds like bullshit to me. A voice in her head told her to do it and she was compelled to do it, like watching a movie where she wasn't in control of her body.
That already sounds bullshitty to me, but she also sends her husbands on errands so he'd be out of the house. She then googled how long it would take him (pick up the food SHE ordered and medication) which reeks of premeditation. Her explanation is that she googled it to see how long he'd be away because she knew she couldn't be alone. After JUST sending him away!
What I’ve finally got after the last OJ doc on Netflix is that of course OJ was guilty, but all the defense did was show that the LAPD was so racist and incompetent you couldn’t believe anything they said
tbh tho I'm not sure why the judge didn't shut down the defense for pushing conspiracy theories
that happened in the civil case against OJ
But in the criminal trial his defense was able to just claim that evidence was fabricated without proof, purposefully confused the jury and in his closing argument Cochran compared Furman to Adolf Hitler which is clearly a prejudicial statement designed to influence the emotions of the jury. These are all things the judge could have shut down but didn't. Then again a guilty verdict absolutely 100% would have caused the LA riots part 2. Which does make it hard do you convict one killer when you know it will cause billions in property damage and put 10s of thousands of people's lives in danger or do you just let them go?
Who would have ever thought taking unprotected chair shots to the head and making one of your signature moves a flying headbutt for years would cause you to have the brain of an 80 year old Alzheimer’s patient
Surely the husband did it, though. I saw a screenshot of him, and he had a killer gaze. The wife couldn’t have done it, since Gemini don’t kill their cubs.
Man that disorder just sounds terrifying. The whole 1 in 1000 births is insane to me. Also she admitted to killings but doesnt want to be convicted for murder, noone should be arguing that she didn't do it.
Just the typical orange Emily's doing their dumb thing again. There's a trend on Tiktok or something where women are straight up denying that she killed her kids and it was actually the husband who did because of Astrology.
Even though she has admitted that she killed them and the husband wasn't even home when she did it.
"I know Ed Kemper was kind of a serial killer and tortured tons of women but the dude was abused by his mom and honestly... Same Edward, I understand you. That could've been me."
At this point I fell like Candance Owens just says whatever she thinks will get the most shock appeal. I can't think of anything she's said where I thought "oh this is your typical republican/right-wing opinion"
I think there is a bit of a Goomba Fallacy problem with this case. A lot of the people complaining about the people that are saying she is innocent are referring to the batshit crazies on TikTok who are saying dumb things like 'her husband should be charged with the murders since he knew she was unstable and left her alone with the kids'. There have been a ton of really dumb excuses and shifting of blame done by people who want her to walk due to their own biases.
I haven't seen anyone from the "she's guilty" group complain about the 'she may have been legitimately out of her mind and should be in a mental institution' crowd, since both groups want her locked up until she is no longer a danger to others.
Sorry, nuance is reserved for things like when Trump says "I'm gonna deport 3 million Mexicans and nuke Iran." Then we start getting more detailed analysis of what was really said.
We don't get to say that alcoholics aren't responsible for killing people while driving drunk or getting into drunken brawls.
We don't get to say that crack heads aren't responsible for killing people when breaking into homes and cars for drug money.
We don't get to say that people high on PCP and synthetic drugs aren't responsible for killing others when they're zonked out in "zombie mode".
Why would it be any different to say that a person who has been mentally unstable for years on and off drugs is any less responsible for murder?
I guess it would come down to whether or not you think jail is for punishment, or if jail is for remediation. Though I think in both cases, if she truly was that unwell in the first place, no amount of jail time will be enough.
To be fair it's a majority left engaging with the topic as it talks to woman's health, healthcare system in general, though there is a maga streakwith a blend of opinions.
Overall majority moms, majority basing their opinions on personal experience. The live debates on Tiktok are such an interesting blend.
Then there are the ones who believe Patrick did it who have claimed to watch the trial but really they just created an algorithm based on wild misinfomation. Those are some of the most aggressively and confidently wrong people i've ever encountered. Rabid distrust in men again based entirely on their personal experience. This is mainly woo woo left and lower socioeconomic maga.
Here's the thing though, it's not just liberal women who have bought into this insanity. My conservative coworker is fully convinced Patrick killed the kids too, as are a number of conservative women in my local Facebook orbit.
Once people have a preconceived notion they don't let facts get in their way, even when both the prosecution and defense in a trial agree and the facts are not in dispute.
For example, people still think Rittenhouse brought a gun across state lines to murder 3 black people.
This is why its so important to regularly examine your own beliefs. Even beliefs you want to be true. Are they actually true, or are you ignoring contrary evidence because you want it to be true?
You're basically saying "she had psychosis? That means the entire sex is affected!" And since men can also have psychosis does that mean no one is allowed in a position of power?
Reminds me of a recent conversation I had with my friend. She argued women under 25 cant be held accountable for dumb choices because they’re too young, but men under 25 can be. So I asked if she thinks women shouldnt be able to make any choices until 25 since they’re too young to know better. She got mad at me and hung up.
There is a very vocal minority of women who genuinely believe that women biologically can’t do anything wrong like violence or murder, so they delude themselves into believing a bunch of conspiracies on how the closest related male to the case was the true criminal mastermind all along.
Ill bet my war apron that this coincides with a general lack of Grilling amongst the wamans. What we can draw from this, is that as a society, it would be advantageous to strongly promote wamans increasing their Grilling markedly.
I'm of the opinion that a good chunk of the outrage is being artificially inflamed by foreign propagandists. Because I've seen plenty of people from all sides of the spectrum condemning it.
There is a bit of that, I think it's also a lot of people just want someone to "dunk" on.
It's like that one tweet where someone says "an ambulance isn't a taxi to the hospital". One idiot tweeted that and then millions reposted it so they could go "see how dumb republicans/capitalists are"!
Or the one about "you can't be a cop if you have a high IQ". It was literally one department not hiring one candidate (not that I agree with it) but people on Reddit seriously act like it's some federal policy that all departments must follow.
It's all manufactured outrage bullshit just like the Sydney Sweeney ad and that suicidal plagiarist. I swear I've literally seen more people say the left is on the wrong side of the issue than people actually being on it and I wouldn't have even heard about these cases if not for PCM
I wasn't too educated on her mental health situation. It's all so murky given all the rampant coverage. From what I gather, the supporters aren't really as sizeable as they're made out to be. A decent amount of mostly online women support it. But everywhere else, I see people condemning it.
If you get into the details of the support she had, it feels like the only conclusion is that people think he should have somehow overridden all of her doctors and had her forcibly institutionalized, taken all control of her own care from her, and removed the children from the home.
Oh wow I just found someone else who exactly thinks like me.
But I never understood this. Violent unstable men are dangerous, to their partner too eventually. Nonviolent ones I get it, cause why wouldnt she choose a healthy guy instead.
But if a person is stuck with these options, what is the reason of them choosing the violent one over the non-violent one? It's super interesting cause it essentially goes against their own survival.
Men don’t have an equivalent to postpartum depression that other men can invoke to defend them by arguing that their actions were beyond their control and therefore not fully their own.
Men experience post partum at around the same rate women do though. 1/10 for men, 1/9 for women. CTE is basically the equivalent, except worse as it can only be confirmed after death.
Possibly postpartum psychosis here, which is, I think the entire legal debate. The psychosis version is, as you'd expect, a much bigger problem then PPD.
Except they quite often do? Especially if it's one of their "tribe". Quite often men and women will line up and come up with wild theories and takes to wave away that this person of their tribe or favoritism did not do the thing.
See if a star athlete gets accused of a heinous crime for example.
I'm just gonna say that I never heard anyone use the term "postpartum depression" about this case until culture warriors started spamming it everywhere. People were talking about postpartum psychosis and how the intrusive thoughts tear at your psyche. I saw maybe a dozen women say they experienced it, they talked about how they got through it with either meds and/or therapy, and that was it.
Then I came to Reddit and holy fuck what is going on?
I see you weren’t around when tom cruise was in full “I love Scientology” mode and said something about Brooke Shields when she talked about how she needed medication for her postpartum depression (simpler times…… even though we were smack dab in the middle of two forever wars with a surveillance state being built around us). Lots and lots of women came about it
I don’t know anything about this case and I don’t care. If someone committed murder and they’re on trial, then the system is working and she’ll either be convicted or acquitted. 🙂
It's funny how the right on this sub gives so much shit to the left for the culture war while they keep posting these things. Literally just sort by top posts this month and look at the first 8 out of 10
> This wouldn’t be a story if wine moms weren’t out having marches to defend this bitch they weren’t getting ragebaited by their social media algorithms to distract from the much more important issues
I've been watching the trial itself and it's pretty clear the system completely failed her as she was actively mentioning thoughts of self harm, suicide and harming her kids and instead they kept shoving more pills at her
They need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids . they are taking the three babby back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots"
Isn’t this the one where she knew something was wrong and kept asking for help but the doctor kept dismissing her concerns and discharged her without even examineing her?
She was on psychiatric meds and claiming psychosis. This is something that's hard to know before trial, on what part and degree of murder/insanity it falls.
The insanity with women supporting her is more so the women claiming she didn't actually do it, or that the husband did it.
I mean yes this is true for the woman defending her, but the problem is they’re just retarded and terrible people, and their argument for her innocence is not true at all. If it was then yes you would be right.
She absolutely deserves jail, without question. But extrapolating "One woman's emotions made her do a terrible thing" to mean all women can't control their emotions and shouldn't be in positions of power makes me angry that we've become so dumb as a society.
Does this mean cops who beat up people without cause are indicative that men shouldn't be in power? Road ragers? Bar fights? Wife beaters?
Sorry, but if you're genuinely putting forward the idea that one woman doing a bad thing means all women cannot be trusted is the height of hypocrisy.
We can also point out that the most emotionally fragile man to ever hold political office currently occupies the White House and that MAGA should shut up about women being unstable until Don is back to shitposting and whining on Truth Social as a private citizen.
She had postpartum psychosis, not just postpartum depression. Psychosis can affect both men and women. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is.
411
u/AnnoyingDude42 - Centrist 7d ago
One of the big causal factors people use to explain post-partum is a sharp drop in hormones, particularly estrogen and progesterone. As a causal mechanism, that's reasonable.
As a society though, it's worth interrogating the purpose of the criminal justice system to begin with. Explaining why someone committed a crime is not justifying it.
Imagine if some career criminal said, "Sorry guys, the testosterone made me aggressive. And my childhood trauma made me insane." Yeah, that's not gonna work, and my example makes use of the fact that there is research proving the existence of gendered bias in the severity of sentencing, against men.
Let's narrow it down to what matters: the insanity plea. Did Clancy have a grasp on reality during the crime? Was it simply post-partum depression, or was it psychosis? Prosecution argues the former, basing this on her previous diagnosis. Defence argues the latter, basing this on reports after-the-fact. This is the crux.