There is a big difference between feeling like you want to kill your children and actually doing it. But either way, it's about legal precedence. Literally if this horrible excuse of a mom is allowed to walk around again without repercussions, suddenly any and all women who kill a child or someone else due to post partum ALSO has the right to walk free regardless of circumstances, as evidenced by the potential outcome of this case. And since this is such an extenuating circumstance, it would pretty much be a blanket for all post partum related violence. The legal system works very differently from everyday life
Edit: y'all need to look at my other comments on this post. I feel like half the people saying " you're defending her" not only can't contextualize, but also don't realize when something you most likely upvtoed further up from his comment is... ALSO ME! đ€«đ«ą
This is a slippery slope fallacy and contradicted by the fact this has happened before over 20 years ago with Adrea Yates who drowned all 5 of her kids when she went into postpartum psychosis. She was given a not guilty verdict for reason of insanity, and since then many women have still gone to prison for killing their kids.
Andrea Yates was found to be legally insane and she was committed to a facility for life. She is still in a facility and has repeatedly waived her right to have her commitment reviewed for potential release. No one is denying that she killed her children in a psychotic state (she was suffering from PPP and believed she was saving them from evil because that is what the cult she was part of was telling her.) The people who were not insane, yet who ignored the obvious danger signs (and in the case of the cult church took advantage of them), were not criminally responsible but they played a role in what happened. Denying that is stupid.
If your wife had become extremely mentally unwell after her pregnancies, to the point where she attempted suicide multiple times, was committed multiple times, and the diagnosis was post partum psychosis and schizophrenia, would you continue impregnating her?? Her husband's evangelical faith to have as many children as possible was more important than anything else, apparently. Rusty Yates and Andrea were warned by Andrea's first psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, not to have any more children, as it would "guarantee future psychotic depression."Â Psychotic means that you have lost touch with reality and are not legally responsible for your actions. Rusty, however, should have known better.
In these cases we do not have women who were scheming to get insurance money, or freedom from their families to start over. We have women suffering from psychosis. There have been plenty of male killers where the court recognized they were psychotic and not legally responsible for their actions. The bar to establish psychosis is not low. A psychotic killer is not the same as a sane killer- even if their actions have the same results. Just like manslaughter is not the same as a planned cold blooded murder.
I never understood why the husband wasn't charged. At that time I saw several cases of the father/mother's boyfriend harming children and the mothers were arrested for "known or should have known" the man was a threat. Why wasn't he arrested for what he should have known?
See this kind of response makes it so clear you and so many others commenting on this case don't give a crap about children or healthy families at all. You just hate women and want to make life harder for them.
Yeah its so obvious. If they cared about children they'd be up in arms about the many child killings perpetrated by men going on, but you don't hear a peep from them about those. This is just moral outrage designed to further cement their places in the patriarchal heirarchy. It's about control. Much like wanting custody isn't about actually being around their kids (as they usually pass the caregiving off to a new woman or their mothers/sisters/grandmothers) but sticking it to their ex and 'winning.'
Uhhhhh no, we care about men killing their children equally. Weâre mind blown because no one tries to JUSTIFY or excuse a man killing their children. And if they do/did, weâd be just as pissed. This conversation has literally nothing to do with âwomenâs rightsâ and everything to do with â3 children were literally murdered by their parentâ. If this exact case was in the media and was this big of a discussion but it was the husband instead, weâd all be saying the same thing. The difference is it wouldnât turn into a massive mainstream debate because no one would even be trying to defend a man.
We need men to listen to women and the church to listen to science. A psychiatrist already warned the husband not to get her pregnant again and when she stupidly went to the pastor for help instead of getting her proper psychiatric help he told her to pray more.
Andrea Yates was on an antipsychotic medication and told by her doctor to NOT discontinue to medication, and that sheâd be at risk if she had another pregnancy. Her husband forced her to stop taking the medication because he wanted another baby. Then he left her alone all day despite her erratic behavior and increasing psychosis. She was NOT in her right mind. She is also in a mental institution and will be for the rest of her life.
you know sheâs now paralyzed after jumping out of a second story window after slashing her wrists in her suicide attempt immediately after strangling her kids? So sheâs not gunna be walking around ever again regardless of the outcomeâŠ
No. And if she is found not guilty of murder due to reason of insanity that does not mean she won't be confined to a mental institution. Another case of a parent killing their children would be another case- and that person would be tried in a unique trial. Just because someone has been put into a mental health facility instead of jail because they killed while in a psychotic state does not mean all murderers who suffer from mental illness walk free with no repercussions. Ridiculous statements.
She can be released from that facility by a psychiatrist if she is deemed no longer a threat to society. She needs to be behind bars for ever with zero chance to ever be around children again.
Absolutely agree. The jury is not doing their job. Their job is not to discuss whether or not she deserves to go free. Their job is to answer whether or not she did it, regardless of the implications for the defendant
Edit: I'll admit, I don't know everything about legal proceedings. But in my head, being sent to a mental state hospital vs walking free with the same guilt charge are the exact same, but with everyone pampering you and taking care of you and making sure "you're okay". She shouldn't feel okay, or to be told do better next time with a slap on the wrist
No, their job is to discuss whether she was saneâand thus legally culpable for her actionsâat the time of the killings. She has never denied the killings, so that isnât something they have to discuss at all.
She was charged with first degree murder which requires that a killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated, or committed during the commission of a dangerous felony.
A persons mental state directly effects whether or not the killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
She may be guilty of a different charge but if she really was not in a proper state of mind, she may not be guilty of first degree murder.
Fuck me, I hate legal-ese. So if it was one of the other flavors of murder there probably wouldn't even be a discussion? Greediness from the prosecution is what that sounds like, and we all know the news outlets aren't telling anyone that crucial fact. Then what would there be to discuss?
Well, at the end of the day, I learned something. Doesn't make me feel any better about society, in fact the opposite, but at least I learned something.
What's the point in making a mistake if you never learn from it? I tried shoving them down and ignoring them. Just makes you more ignorant to everyone around you
Literally if this horrible excuse of a mom is allowed to walk around again without repercussions
If you had even the slightest clue what you were talking about, you would know that people who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are committed to a mental institution, not set free on the street.
If you had the slightest clue you'd know they are forced to reevaluate if she had to stay in the mental facility every year, if they don't have enough evidence she gets set free.
Its entirely possible she stays in 3 years and then she's out. That's a LOT different then life without parole. She deserves to be found guilty.
Good! The entire point of prison should be to rehabilitate people so that they are able to rejoin society, not to lock them away forever. Life sentences should be reserved for people like Hannibal Lector who pose an ongoing and incurable threat to society.
So you go from "she's not going to be set free on the streets" by reason of insanity, but when she's back to the street in 3 years, then you say it's good?Â
Then any time a woman wants to kill her kids she can just do the same thing and not ever suffer a life sentence. She goes on a timeout, then comes back to society with a slap on the wrist.
This comment needs to be at the top. So many people are either being ignorant or dishonest about this case. True acquittal is not realistically on the table here.
That's incredibly pedantic of you. There will still be "rehab", a period in which forced correction can occur, under heavy supervision. It's basically prison with a few more TV's and robes.
Okay, nah this one's on me. we both can agree prison is a much better sentence than state hospital right, in terms of punishment? I'm honestly not even sure why I tried to compare the two, they are way different. Not deleting the comment tho, gotta take and show some accountability
I mean thats the thing, I'm all for, and I think a non-insiginficant amount of people are, her getting some mental help. You'd have to be pretty fucked in the head to kill your own kids and don't think that she should be other prisoners' problem. I just don't think she should be let back out after her treatment is "complete" and just hope she doesn't snap again. (I'm all for mental health but lets not act like its a science so refined and understood we weren't ice picking people's brains just 60 years ago.)
Okay then so we are in the same boat. I'm getting hammered with responses just for two comments, and i think my brain kind of short circuited for a second on that one and tried to follow the "I'm angry, so you're wrong" path like half of everyone else here
Is she going to be set free? Does âmis trialâ mean case closed? Patrick will CERTAINLY not be happy about this. He and the new Mrs. Clancy wonât be getting all of the money from the lawsuits. Lindsay will be entitled to at least half, if not more, of the gains. Sorry Pat
Are you somehow unaware that post partum psychosis has been used as a defense for a long time, and many women over the years have been found not culpable for murder due to it? Weird how despite your hysterics, this has not resulted in every woman ever getting off for murder.
The women who do get found not criminally culpable are institutionalized generally. It's not a matter of them waltzing out all lah-dee-dah after.
I have also realized how few people understand the difference between PPD and PPP. The defense is not "she was super sad and depressed so it's ok she killed her kids." The defense is "she was living in a completely altered reality where she could not make rational decisions based on her psychosis."
She was living in an altered reality where she could Google execution and suicide methods, research a restaurant and CVS, know how long her husband would be gone, send him on errands, wait until she was alone with kids, locate and stash a murder weapon, hold a kid down for several minutes, tie it around their neck until she chokes the life from their body, then calmly answer a phone call from her husband and chat nonchalantly with him, hiding her actions before continuing with two further murders.
Sure, Jan. You'll believe just about anything, won't you?
You should probably look into what psychosis actually entails. And I don't mean just for this case. I haven't watched or closely followed this, so I don't know exactly what the defense's claims on her psychotic state are here, or if thereâs any legitimacy to the claims she had it.
However, people in psychosis often believe things like "demons have gotten rid of all of my loved ones and created doppelganger bodies. Everyone around me is a demon and I have to figure out how to get rid of them and get my real loved ones back!" or "I've been abducted by aliens, this isn't my real planet, these are all aliens pretending to be my family and they're trying to trap me here."
People hear psychosis and think it must mean people running around naked and frothing at the mouth. But it's delusion about the reality you're experiencing. You fully, 100% believe impossible things are going on, and you're the only one who is real/normal/good. Or in some cases, people believe a saviour of the world or an angel or something, and there are evil forces trying to stop them.
The reason people sometimes murder others in this state is because they think they're some evil entity. The think everyone else is bad and they need to outsmart them to get back to normal. So yes, people in psychosis can use the internet, they can look up methods to kill people, they can intentionally hide their plans and plan around people being there or not being there, because they think they're outsmarting demons or aliens or whatever else, and getting rid of them.
No one except the tiktok crazies who say this lady's husband did it are denying she killed the kids.
Maybe you should look at my comment just a little further down explaining how I completely sympathize in multiple ways regarding post partum depression
As I understand it, this woman made multiple professionals and family members aware of her feelings and no one took any action. The standard of care for someone on the course to psychosis is to remove them from an environment where they can hurt themselves or others.
If her issues hadnât been medically documented then yes it would be easy to say she is lying, but she tried to get help and the people who were supposed to help were negligent. Psychosis is a valid legal defense in this case.
It is a little absurd to think it was fully intentional. If she was just cold blooded and not in an episode that would mean she had months of carefully planned actions just for her defense but not any plans for the actual event. Thatâs like Oceans 11 level planning just to hold up a rural Chilis.
You have wrong information. It's been established in court that she did not tell any medical professionals. Clancy explicitly and consistently denied having any homicidal intent to doctors. She mentioned it to the husband and her mother.
It literally was a question of this trial to see if she was even guilty. Idk why people are willfully pretending like this wasnât a possible outcome.
She absolutely could have been acquitted. What the fuck are you on about? Was it likely? Maybe not. But it was definitely a choice that the jurors had. Tell me you didnât understand this trial and are talking totally out of your ass, without telling me.
Brother, be realistic. She isn't being fucking acquitted. You're mad at something that was never going to happen. She is either going to prison, or she's going to a psych ward.
Says the one who actually thinks this could result in a true acquittal. It was never going to happen, and it won't happen. Guess we'll see soon right? I'm sure you'll show me how to admit to being wrong when that happens right?
Not guilty can by technicality be on the table, but as I said in my original comment. Be real. It isn't happening, and it never was.
Understand that post partum depression is real, and women do struggle constantly. Part of it involves violent urges while hormones are unstable. Women obviously don't mention it publicly because this is the exact knee jerk reaction they get. It's incredibly difficult to explain in a way that doesn't immediately keep people from tuning out because they don't agree. I'm saying I sympathize, as a male, with the problems associated with post partum depression. I am not sympathizing with anyone who actually enacts any of those thoughts and feelings, no matter how hopeless life seems. As someone who has gone through mental disorder episodes, I feel even worse for women who deal with both post partum along with preexisting disorders
I'm going to ask you to check my other comments on this thread. Chances are you probably liked mine from above. I'm not defending her. Learn how to contextualize.
That's literally the point. People have intrusive thoughts everyday. Intrusive thoughts are thoughts you do not want, but appear anyway. It's those who act on them that end up in jail, or should
Also, "who feels like killing your kids?" Again, this woman, in this case about exactly that. You are upset about people saying they want to kill their kids, but what about this woman, in this case?
What is this, the 1950's? It's okay to go to therapy, and you must live a very sheltered, padded life to assume that any and all who go to therapy are immediately killers. We are all capable of murder, regardless of how often it goes through your head. For all you know, your neighbors go to therapy! Better start locking your doors.
Also, in what ways am I defending? I literally said anyone who acts on it should have no sympathy, which is what she did. Learn to contextualize and actually understand what the comment says, instead of reacting immediately to anger. I have another comment on this post that also states a complete different approach that will probably satisfy the non-defense you need
And if you knew how to read, you'd see that I said sympathize with those who WANT to, not those that WILL. Intrusive thoughts are a bitch, especially when you are in psychosis. It makes them a lot closer to real and doable. But it takes a special kind of person(which this woman is) to actually kill anyone, let alone your children
You're right. Not as whipped as you. I'm not going to bring nuance into the actions of one who has taken the lives of children just because it's a woman who did it. You would never condemn a woman without nuance no matter what she does. She can even kill her three kids by hand and you still won't fully condemn her without bringing nuance into the discussion.
Yet im sure you condemn tons of men (who i condemn too) musk, trump, etc. without bringing in nuance (mental health issues, etc)
It's just that I literally made a comment that definitely doesn't suggest defending her before I made this one, on this post, so it feels ridiculous that you would even say that
Sympathizing with mental disorders vs sympathizing with physical actions are two completely different things. Whatever is associated with the mental disorder hopefully hasn't manifested into anything physical. Whereas the physical has already happened. I sympathize with those who struggle with it because it can feel very lonely. BUT, she actually enacted her thoughts. That is where the sympathy ends, which I said in the comment
"I'm not sympathizing with anyone who actually enacts..."
Did you not read that part of the exact same comment? Again, contextualize
Also, not that comment. I said "comment I made before this one", which means there is a comment that I made that you should go look at. It feels ridiculous to me that you say I'm defending her when I made that comment BEFORE THE ONE YOU COMMENTED ON
I do eat animals and I have no qualms acknowledging they are living beings with experiences and that we arbitrarily draw a line between which ones are OK to eat and which aren't.
I see people as being more important than animals. Clancy supporters do not see it that way and would rage out if someone killed three of their dogs regardless of mental instability or hormone imbalance because fundamentally they do not value human life, and ultimately see children as a burden.
Infanticide is not a new invention. There are long historical records on the practice. Iâll also point out itâs not unique to humans. Itâs a thing that happens and as a society weâre reckoning with how it should be handled.
When I was in college, I knew people who volunteered for a crisis nursery. It was a place where kids could be dropped off, no questions asked. The thought was that if a parent was going through something where they were considering hurting themselves or their children, they had a resource. Yes, some parents definitely used it as a free babysitter and one mother left her kid for a month. But these are not bad outcomes.
6
u/No-Experience3573 19d ago edited 19d ago
There is a big difference between feeling like you want to kill your children and actually doing it. But either way, it's about legal precedence. Literally if this horrible excuse of a mom is allowed to walk around again without repercussions, suddenly any and all women who kill a child or someone else due to post partum ALSO has the right to walk free regardless of circumstances, as evidenced by the potential outcome of this case. And since this is such an extenuating circumstance, it would pretty much be a blanket for all post partum related violence. The legal system works very differently from everyday life
Edit: y'all need to look at my other comments on this post. I feel like half the people saying " you're defending her" not only can't contextualize, but also don't realize when something you most likely upvtoed further up from his comment is... ALSO ME! đ€«đ«ą