#metoo

[Snarky Oracle!]

Men do not suffer from postpartum psychosis so as @Seaviewer points out, comparison with other cases, particularly those involving men, are not relevant

So post-partum is the only kind of psychosis that permits murderers to walk? (Pardon the expression, if not the defendant).

As for familarising yourself with the case, the people who were most familiar with the case were the jury who sat through 6 weeks of evidence and 11 out of 12 of them thought she was not guilty of murder.

Yeah, you have to sit in a courtroom to participate in jury nullification -- which is what those 11 jurors did.

Thank Jesus for that strong black man who stopped those witches from acquitting that monster mama!

 

[Angela Channing]

So post-partum is the only kind of psychosis that permits murderers to walk? (Pardon the expression, if not the defendant).

Women who are convicted of infanticide don't walk, they generally are given hospital orders and are subject to strict supervision.

Yeah, you have to sit in a courtroom to participate in jury nullification -- which is what those 11 jurors did.

Thank Jesus for that strong black man who stopped those witches from acquitting that monster mama!

You brought up familiarisation with the case. I respectably put it to you that you are not as familiar with the details of the case as the jurors who sat through all the evidence in court.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Women who are convicted of infanticide don't walk, they generally are given hospital orders and are subject to strict supervision.


You brought up familiarisation with the case. I respectably put it to you that you are not as familiar with the details of the case as the jurors who sat through all the evidence in court.

So you're defending her, and any way you can! You're siding with those white witches again a strong, rational black man!

Shame --- shame!!

 

[CeeCee72]

@Angela Channing I think you and I agree on most issues, but not this one.

I gave birth to two live children. I lost two others. With my youngest I did have a severe case of post partum depression. I had trouble bonding with my baby. I had thoughts of self harm.

I never had a thought of killing or harming my children - just myself.

I know I can't say my problems are the same as Clancy's. But I would have convicted her. Mental illness is no excuse for murder.

 

[Angela Channing]

So you're defending her, and any way you can! You're siding with those white witches again a strong, rational black man!

Shame --- shame!!

Where did I defend her? I was just pointing out that she wouldn't even be charged with murder if she carried out her crime in the UK.

I don't have a strong view on her case because I don't know the full details (this case has had very little coverage in the UK) which is why I defer to those who have all the available facts,, i.e. the jury.

Why are you bringing race into this? Another completely irrelevant point. Your faux anger doesn't cover the fact that you are not as familiar with the details of the case as the jurors.

@Angela Channing I think you and I agree on most issues, but not this one.

I gave birth to two live children. I lost two others. With my youngest I did have a severe case of post partum depression. I had trouble bonding with my baby. I had thoughts of self harm.

I never had a thought of killing or harming my children - just myself.

I know I can't say my problems are the same as Clancy's. But I would have convicted her. Mental illness is no excuse for murder.

Again I don't know the facts of this particular case, so I will only comment on infanticide cases in general.

I'm sorry you had postpartum depression but I hope you got the support you needed from those around you to get through it.

I don't know how the severity of Ms Clancy's postpartum depression compares with yours, and what support she received to help her deal with it, which is why I think it isn't always helpful to compare cases. But in general, if someone has a metal health condition that affects their ability to act or think rationally, then I think it is right that a court should take that into consideration when determining someone's guilt or not. It applies to men just as much as women. A man in a similar situation (i.e. killed someone while suffering from a mental health condition that caused diminished responsibilities), would not be convicted of murder. He wouldn't go unpunished though, in the same way a woman convicted of infanticide wouldn't go unpunished. They would be incarcerated under a medical supervision order for a period of time during which they would be treated. Depending on their sentence and how they respond to treatment, they could even be locked up for longer that if they had they been convicted of murder. I don't think that is a bad system.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Even with all of those jurors being familiar with the case, the verdict still wasn't unanimous. The male juror has taken the brunt of the criticism, yet it's just as possible that the eleven women who voted not guilty (by reason of insanity) were pursuing "their own agenda." Ultimately, jurors are average humans who can be swayed by personal biases.

I believe there are times when rehabilitation and eventual release is acceptable, but some crimes (like the murder of your own children) are too heinous to allow that IMO.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

 

[Seaviewer]

If you kill your kids, just see how long your mental competence keeps you out of the gas chamber.

Crazy should not be an excuse to avoid accountability. Not for men, and not for women.

That's nonsensical. Of course mental incompetence "keeps you out of the gas chamber." But you wouldn't "walk" either. There would more than likely be some sort of detention.

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever been inside a courtroom (despite Snarky's countless threats to sue me for Season 10 plagiarism) but I think that the comparison to another, similar case (with a specific ruling that has set a precedent) can be the deciding factor in whatever legal case at hand.

Yes, but, as you say, it has to be specific.

Based on the psychologists' findings, she didn't have "acute psychosis" at the time of the murders. It sounded more like a classic case of murder and (attempted) suicide.

This is really the point here, isn't it? Whether or not she was psychotic. On that hinges whether it was murder, legally speaking. It would help if the terms weren't being used interchangeably.

 

[Frank Underwood]

This is really the point here, isn't it? Whether or not she was psychotic. On that hinges whether it was murder, legally speaking. It would help if the terms weren't being used interchangeably.

Technically, yes. But then the jurors have to be convinced that the defendant was actually psychotic at the time of the killings.

Also, the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense is commonly used as a get out of jail free card. It reminds me of Morrisey on Dallas taking "crazy lessons" to avoid prison and possibly the death penalty. Murder may be a legal term, but even if I believed that Clancy was psychotic when she killed her children, I could never look past the savage nature of the crime. Being institutionalized rather than imprisoned comes with the possibility that the offender could be deemed "rehabilitated," and thus released after a period of time. Personally, I don't think Clancy should ever see the light of day again, regardless of what her mental state was. I just think some crimes are too egregious to ever get past.

Of course, the psychologist who evaluated Clancy wasn't convinced she was psychotic, yet all 11 female jurors were. Good thing the jury wasn't unbalanced or anything...

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This is really the point here, isn't it? Whether or not she was psychotic. On that hinges whether it was murder, legally speaking. It would help if the terms weren't being used interchangeably.

Of course, the psychologist who evaluated Clancy wasn't convinced she was psychotic, yet all 11 female jurors were. Good thing the jury wasn't unbalanced or anything...

Actually, several psychiatric evaluators said that she was not in psychosis. But the jury recalls what they choose, continuing to push that narrative in order to vindicate her.

 

[Crimson]

But the jury recalls what they choose, continuing to push that narrative in order to vindicate her.

These jurors should really learn to shut up; now it seems as though they were less interested in the details of the case than delivering a message on behalf of women.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2099232371526738178

 

[Laurie!]

I only followed the Clancy case with quick news sound bites (for my own sanity...having to envision those 3 innocent children watching their mother kill them). However, it's my understanding she admitted to murdering them and one would hope that ensures she never sees freedom again...even if she was under some psychosis incident. What concerns me is the legal precedent it would set for her being found not guilty.

I believe post partum depression is a legitimate thing. What gets me with this case is, you could attempt to argue she was under a mental trance while killing one child or even all 3 at the same time (I can't even fathom) but to watch that 1st child turn blue, take it's last breath because of her...,Then proceed to knowingly, methodically go upstairs, bring the next child down, do it all over again and repeat the same events separately a 3rd time...then know to attempt to kill herself so she could be with her children. She had to know what she was doing i.m.o. and deserves to be guilty of 3 counts of 1st degree murder.

 

[Laurie!]

I would also like to add...she apparently also waited for her husband to leave the house so she could carry out her murders and suicide attempt. I'm no expert on psychosis but I can't imagine it being controllable when and where she had that alleged event...in order to get her husband out of the house 1st. It was a deliberate act of triple murder.

 

[CeeCee72]

As to whether mental illness should be an excuse to commit murder or other heinous crime -

Think about serial killers or serial pedophiles. They are almost always severely mentally ill. Should their illness prevent them from being tried, convicted, and sent to prison? The problem with holding these people for "treatment" is that they can be declared "cured" and turned back into society at any time. It just seems crazy to me that anyone could advocate for this woman to be found not guilty by reason of insanity and shipped off for "treatment" but somehow still advocate for prison or the death penalty for serial killers. Is it the KIND of mental illness that's the issue?

 

[Crimson]

is that they can be declared "cured" and turned back into society at any time

I present the case of Constance Fisher.

TLDR: murdered her 3 kids; went away for treatment and released; had 3 more kids; murdered them.