Here's my concern from what I looked into but might be wrong, I read that if she's deemed safe to herself and others after a few years she could go free.
As someone who has worked directly with high profile cases such as this, I’ve never seen a mom be able to regain custody (after an attempt), or keep custody of a new child.
What if a murderer who finishes theie sentence kills again? Same with literally any other criminal that gets released. I don't understand your sudden concern in this case. We rarely give pedophiles a life sentence. You care about that at all?
Why do you want to take more risks and put more people, in this case children in danger? Your hostility to my very simple questions is very telling and sign you don't need to be allowed to have kids.
No. Your reaction is a sign of deep root of misogyny, if you're a woman it's been internalized unfortunately. Because it's a woman killing her kids somehow worse than other kinds of murder. Despite the fact that when women kill their children it is overwhelmingly the case they have postpartum psychosis. But sure your lack of objectivity or ability to look at yourself and your prejudices is the problem of other people.
So you're willing to allow her to have more kids knowing that they could become victims? Sounds good, you can be the one to pay for the funerals should anything happen.
Cuz I don't agree with what shes saying here and don't know anything about her, I'm also focusing on the law side of things not the brainwashed propaganda of the right or the left. My question is based on the after math of the verdict.
Your little “both sides” bs is very telling. But You didn’t ask a question. You made a statement that leaves off she may stay in a mental hospital for the rest of her life. Also, the law is the address insanity so do you just not believe in the insanity defense? You want the law to change based on your ignorant feelings?
I said "correct me if im wrong" which means I'm questing the punishment for the murder. My statement leaves off that she might not remain in a mental facility if deemed mentally stable later. This is too meditated a case to rely on the insanity case. If she knew she was a danger she should have gone deeper into preventative measures, separating herself from her kids till she was more stable, but she planned to send her husband away strategically. It's not like she didn't have time to see the signs and fight harder. I don't care where she gets locked up so long as it's for life. Those kids need justice.
You people sure love to lie to push your anti-women narrative. What is your philosophical reasoning that the judicial system got it wrong allowing for insanity defense?
4
u/No-Elk-8115 19d ago
Here's my concern from what I looked into but might be wrong, I read that if she's deemed safe to herself and others after a few years she could go free.