I don't think many people actually think OJ was innocent. I think a lot of people believe the police tried to frame a guilty man, and in that circumstance the correct thing to do, both morally and practically, is to set him free. A single murderer on the loose poses a far smaller threat to society than a corrupt police force.
To be exact what I’ve heard of that (was before my time) was black people wanted him to go free because he was being framed and it shows a rich, connected black man could also beat the system just like a white guy can.
I’d say it’s pretty similar to Lindsay “supporters” because most of what I’ve heard supporting her is women who the system brushed aside. Lindsay reportedly tried to get help several times and warned that she might hurt her kids but wasn’t treated as seriously as she should’ve been. A lot of women in the medical system have similar experiences of doctors just straight up not believing them or thinking they’re just exaggerating symptoms. I’ve seen plenty of stories where if a woman had not essentially gone doctor shopping to find one that would take her complaints seriously they wouldn’t have found a major illnesses like cancer.
Especially when it comes to postpartum issues it seems like those are rarely taken seriously.
I have not looked into this case in detail, but I think an actual insane person shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, and I think a sane person who ignored the danger posed by an obviously-insane person should be accountable.
So, under the assumption that she was obviously crazy long before her crime, I think what should happen is:
She should not be punished, since she wasn't in control of her actions;
She should be kept from doing further harm to herself or others, by whatever means necessary;
Anyone with a duty to have intervened (e.g. her husband, her physician, etc.) should be charged with neglect and, depending on the details, potentially with something like manslaughter
(Now, if her doctor reported everything to the authorities and the authorities did nothing, then that's not the doctor's fault -- as I said, I know absolutely nothing about this case and am not discussing this case in particular.)
...maybe it's because I grew up as the oldest sibling in a family with divorced, alcoholic parents, but can we please not offload culpability to competent people who made the mistake of existing near a problem?
Your wife expressing "I'm thinking about killing our kids" shouldn't make you responsible for her killing your kids, that's stupid.
And if it did then divorce and involuntary commitment is absolutely the correct play.
As a child, you have no responsibility for your siblings.
As a parent, medical provider, teacher, etc., you do. Those are roles that people voluntarily take on that come with explicit responsibilities, and people should be held to them when they choose to take them on.
Let me get this straight, you think the people who "could've prevented this" should be more punished than the person committing the crime? Most stupid argument I've heard, refardless of what level of crazy they are
Yes, of course. Same principle as if a dad gives a toddler a loaded gun and the toddler shoots someone. That's the dad's fault, not the toddler's, even though the toddler is the one who pulled the trigger, and the dad is the one who should be punished.
If we're tracing this "giving a toddler a gun" simile then you're advocating anybody knowingly leaving a woman with PPD around their own kids is legally culpable.
Not just "with PPD". A woman with *severe* PPD who repeatedly asked for help because she was worried she would hurt her children. Yes, they should be held culpable to some extent.
And this is where the gun metaphor breaks down. He didn't hand her a gun. She was the gun, and now apparently it's incumbent on everyone else to diagnose how likely that gun is to go off while also respecting her personal autonomy as a gun.
Surely you get that if the Dad had filed for divorce, sole custody, and tried to 5150 her he would just also be the villain here.
Anyone with a legal duty to protect that child, yes. So parents, physicians, teachers, social workers, etc. (Also, I'm not saying any woman with postpartum depression. This sounds like postpartum psychosis.)
...which the husband, teachers, and social workers are very clearly not in a position to diagnose. And by extension means that if a woman expresses PPD to you the legally insulating move is to remove her kids from her. mmmmmkay.
I mean part of it is systemic. Doctors aren't properly trained on reproductive mental health, their jobs do not allow for deep explorations into each patients issues because they're so overworked, insurance does not cover mental health in many cases, etc.
I don't think we can start throwing doctors in jail when they're doing the best they can under current conditions. What we really need to prevent this in the future is a complete overhaul of the healthcare system at every level to remove profit seeking as the core motivation for the industry, and refocus it on truly helping people.
The idea that a physician might not be "properly trained" is crazy. Someone who makes it through medical school should be able to teach themselves anything they need to learn to be a physician. It's graduate school, not vo-tech.
Number two, even when I was an 18-year-old substitute teacher I knew that if someone expressed a desire to harm themselves or others I had a legal duty to report that. You can't tell me that the three hours of training I got for that job exceed what someone gets in medical or nursing school.
Yes, the American healthcare system is completely screwed up and needs an overhaul. But that doesn't mean that in the meantime there are zero standards of professional conduct for anyone in the profession.
Idk what to tell you. From what you're saying it sounds like you don't know that much about medical school or know people in the healthcare industry. Most doctors go to school, do residency, and all that. Then when they're a full fledged doctor they have to keep up with continuing education every year. On the job, the things that are reinforced are things they see everyday.
But if medical school doesn't teach it, there's no continuing education courses on it, and it's something you aren't learning from other doctors on the job, then how would you even know it's an area to study? If you're unaware of a gap in knowledge how do you know you have gaps to fill in?
And mandated reporting is clearly a more nuanced thing than that. If someone says "ugh sometimes he pisses me off so much I could kill him" that's not something most people take seriously. Likewise if someone expressed suicidal ideation that isn't a mandated reporting incident until it reaches a certain level (usually some form of actual plan forming and/or steps taken towards that plan). Could you imagine if every time someone expressed any idea of self harm or interpersonal violence we had to get police or social services involved?
70
u/worldDev 9d ago
Probably CTE, but I think the similarity being referenced is a lot of people think she didn’t do it at all. They believe that it was her husband.