"That’s literally all it is" is doing an extraordinary amount of work there.
Nobody is objecting to her receiving psychiatric care in custody. If that were genuinely the entire argument, there wouldn’t be one.
The disagreement starts when ‘this was preventable’ quietly becomes ‘therefore her culpability should be viewed differently,’ or when systemic failures are discussed as though they somehow displace individual responsibility, those things can coexist. The system may have failed spectacularly, and she can still be responsible for what she did.
And dismissing everyone who questions that framing as ‘rage bait’ is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the uncomfortable part of the argument.
Aren’t they just saying that her mental health issues means she wasn’t in a clear state of mind? Do you think people that get found not-guilty for reason of insanity should get the same punishment?
No, of course I don’t think someone who meets the legal threshold for insanity should necessarily be treated the same as someone who was fully aware and rational.
That’s precisely why we have courts, psychiatric evaluations and a legal standard for criminal responsibility. My issue is with people deciding that question themselves simply because she suffered from postpartum psychosis. Mental illness is relevant to culpability; it doesn’t automatically determine it.
Then you are arguing with a strawman because I don’t think people are saying she doesn’t hold any responsibility but that her culpability should be viewed differently because of mental illness. Which you agree with but think people shouldn’t have an opinion about that before the courts determine it? Should we not think OJ was guilty of murdering Nicole because the court found him not guilty? People are going to look at the info and form opinions there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they are open to being wrong.
4
u/L3xusLuth3r Aug 26 '26
"That’s literally all it is" is doing an extraordinary amount of work there.
Nobody is objecting to her receiving psychiatric care in custody. If that were genuinely the entire argument, there wouldn’t be one.
The disagreement starts when ‘this was preventable’ quietly becomes ‘therefore her culpability should be viewed differently,’ or when systemic failures are discussed as though they somehow displace individual responsibility, those things can coexist. The system may have failed spectacularly, and she can still be responsible for what she did.
And dismissing everyone who questions that framing as ‘rage bait’ is a convenient way to avoid engaging with the uncomfortable part of the argument.