Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

Samsonsmasher

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Very sad indeed. The science of psychiatry is only in its infancy and it is not an exact science. Mental health practitioners are not clairvoyants. In time we will perhaps develop mind reading computers and there will be treatments that will eliminate mental disorders. Until then tragedies like this are a sad sad part of life.

I wish youd make up your mind between telling us we cannot question the professional verdicts of our betters in the field and then admitting its a very very limited tool of analysis, prediction or mapping of certainty

Tho i will say that "clairvoyance" is a fair parallel to draw. "Cross my palm with silver an hour a week and I'll spin you a tale, now did you need to be sane or insane this time, i can go either way im very highly qualified you know"........

con___manx1

People who think this woman is pure evil have no empathy.
In all honesty who would have 3 kids raise them just to murder them in cold blood.
She worked in a children's hospital. Obviously kids die all the time in this hospital.
I read that one particular patient in her care died and it affected the woman quite badly.
I honestly don't no how any nurses or doctors can be fully sane that deal with that type of thing. I have the highest respect for any nurses or doctors to be honest.
I just think the woman lost her mind working in that environment so I think the verdict is fair.

MoonUnit75

con___manx1 wrote: »

People who think this woman is pure evil have no empathy.
In all honesty who would have 3 kids raise them just to murder them in cold blood.
She worked in a children's hospital. Obviously kids die all the time in this hospital.
I read that one particular patient in her care died and it affected the woman quite badly.
I honestly don't no how any nurses or doctors can be fully sane that deal with that type of thing. I have the highest respect for any nurses or doctors to be honest.
I just think the woman lost her mind working in that environment so I think the verdict is fair.

You'd be surprised, there's no shortage of high profile cases of mothers killing their children, some for entirely selfish reasons like them being an intolerable barrier to a new relationship or to punish an ex-partner.

MoonUnit75

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Keep researching online for insanity verdicts regarding male killers. You'll find enough reading for the weekend.

Maybe, but several studies in different countries have found women are more likely to use the insanity defence and are often significantly more successful than men: https://qz.com/578290/women-are-more-likely-to-successfully-use-the-insanity-defense/

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

I've been going blue in the face trying to explain this and people don't give a damn.

For many, it's a way to go after the lefties and to do more sh*tposting.

Faugheen the issue is that people dont nor shouldnt have to read and agree with the same things you read and agree with in order to guve their opinion on this topic, whether you like that or not

Theres a fair bang of "accept that your betters have ruled" off a lot of the posts and in a case like this its a wholly inadequate expectation of people to pipe down because of appeals to authority and expertise

The law is a live animal and edge cases such as this are subject to public interest particularly where the crime is awful and the ruling is one many will see as a legal curio instead of actual justice

And, as always, a massively technical and defendant-focused case is not going to sway many, the whole trial seemed an exercise in "poor her" and the DPP, judge and the defence essentially directing a quick verdict to make it all go away is not a lot of people's idea of adequate balance

I think thats very understandable tbh, agree with it or not

retro:electro

I’ve never felt such complex and contrasting feelings towards a case for as long as I can remember. It literally plays on almost every emotion I have, sadness, doubt, anger, confusion, sympathy. It’s okay to not be 100% committed to a side. I flip and flop. On the one hand I feel well you would want to be insane to do what she did, the callous and detached nature of it all and how she felt she had failed them. But then I’m brought back to how pre-meditated and evil it all feels. Trying and failing to kill them, and then trying again, and succeeding. I struggle with that. I struggle with the fact she attempted it and failed and then tried again. I think it’s easier to rationalise a flip of a switch or a moment of madness but it’s the planning of this that I find abhorrent, but am willing to accept that my ignorance towards the complexities of mental illness play a part in my confusion. And yet I have sympathy for her. Because she did the most despicable thing someone could ever do and now has to live with that for the rest of her life. A desperately sad case. The poor little things.

Seathrun66

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Maybe, but several studies in different countries have found women are more likely to use the insanity defence and are often significantly more successful than men: https://qz.com/578290/women-are-more-likely-to-successfully-use-the-insanity-defense/

Probably cos it's true.

I see you and the other guy have now accepted that it's commonplace for men to have the insanity plea accepted in cases of family killings.

I don't understand why people are giving this family tragedy a gender slant other than for reasons of petty agendas.

StolenKrone

She should be locked up regardless of sanity. Sickening to see people downplay an atrocity based on mental state.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

The law is a live animal and edge cases such as this are subject to public interest particularly where the crime is awful and the ruling is one many will see as a legal curio instead of actual justice

An insanity verdict for family killings is commonplace. Not a legal curio.

Seathrun66

StolenKrone wrote: »

She should be locked up regardless of sanity. Sickening to see people downplay an atrocity based on mental state.

She is locked up. Are you happier now or seeking a greater thirst for blood?

FileNotFound

py2006 wrote: »

She will be based here for the foreseeable

Nice country house.

Punishment does not fit the crime.

Samsonsmasher

StolenKrone wrote: »

She should be locked up regardless of sanity. Sickening to see people downplay an atrocity based on mental state.

If a person is insane by definition they are not responsible for their actions before the law. If they are insane at the time of their actions and recover subsequently they are free to go. So it is an utter nonsense to say she should be locked up regardless of sanity.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

MoonUnit75

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Probably cos it's true.

I see you and the other guy have now accepted that it's commonplace for men to have the insanity plea accepted in cases of family killings.

I don't understand why people are giving this family tragedy a gender slant other than for reasons of petty agendas.

On the contrary, I don't think I was the only one appalled at how ideologues exploited the Hawe case to further their agendas and indulge in some unfettered misandry. Gender theorists were all over that like a f***** rash and, as far as they were concerned, they owned the debate. They even appropriated one of the victim's names as their banner.

(FYI, I don't accept that men and women are treated equally in these cases, either in the courts or in the press).

Samsonsmasher

FileNotFound wrote: »

Nice country house.

Punishment does not fit the crime.

She is not being punished. She is being treated. When she gets well she will be released.

MoonUnit75

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

If a person is insane by definition they are not responsible for their actions before the law. If they are insane at the time of their actions and recover subsequently they are free to go. So it is an utter nonsense to say she should be locked up regardless of sanity.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

How are people found 'guilty but insane' then?

Posting as someone who actually knew Deirdre when I was in my teens and grew up where she did, It was was a huge shock to hear about this. But this thread is not helpful. Mental health discussions are great, but this thread has, by far, moved on from that. You all should think about who else might be reading this who have connections to the people involved. Ireland is tiny, as I realized over the last couple of days.

Seathrun66

FileNotFound wrote: »

Nice country house.

Punishment does not fit the crime.

Dundrum, not rural.

You understand that it has all the trappings of a prison don't you?

Munstergirl854

Out of curiosity what is life like in Dundrum for people who commit these crimes?

I presume it's like prison in that they try to rehabilitate/treat you to best manage your condition and be released.

Of parents who have killed in recent years, what would be the average time spent there?
Was John Carroll released?

FileNotFound

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

She is not being punished. She is being treated. When she gets well she will be released.

If your insane enough to do what she did one should never be released.

Seathrun66

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

On the contrary, I don't think I was the only one appalled at how ideologues exploited the Hawe case to further their agendas and indulge in some unfettered misandry. Gender theorists were all over that like a f***** rash and, as far as they were concerned, they owned the debate. They even appropriated one of the victim's names as their banner.

(FYI, I don't accept that men and women are treated equally in these cases, either in the courts or in the press).

I think you can point the finger towards the tabloid media for that.
From my experience Hawe would have had a successful insanity plea also.

Blaming women for the above publicity seems misguided.

MoonUnit75

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I think you can point the finger towards the tabloid media for that.
From my experience Hawe would have had a successful insanity plea also.

Blaming women for the above publicity seems misguided.

I never blamed 'women', I blamed 'ideologues'.

Alice1

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How are people found 'guilty but insane' then?

I don't think that term is used anymore. Changed 2006 I think.

Curse These Metal Hands

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I think you can point the finger towards the tabloid media for that.
From my experience Hawe would have had a successful insanity plea also.

Blaming women for the above publicity seems misguided.

True enough. As I said earlier the reporting this time round was better. During the Hawe case it was shocking, ghoulish and very stigmatising.
The general commentary on here too actually. I'd imagine it's very difficult to confide in someone about those kind of thoughts when you see vitriol like that being posted about other cases.

KrustyUCC

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How are people found 'guilty but insane' then?

Barrister on Prime Time explained that

They changed the definition in 2006

This crime used to be guilty but insane

Seathrun66

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

How are people found 'guilty but insane' then?

Effectively the same verdict as not guilty due to insanity.

All easily researchable. And on that note I'm off.

pjohnson

con___manx1 wrote: »

People who think this woman is pure evil have no empathy.
In all honesty who would have 3 kids raise them just to murder them in cold blood.
She worked in a children's hospital. Obviously kids die all the time in this hospital.
I read that one particular patient in her care died and it affected the woman quite badly.
I honestly don't no how any nurses or doctors can be fully sane that deal with that type of thing. I have the highest respect for any nurses or doctors to be honest.
I just think the woman lost her mind working in that environment so I think the verdict is fair.

My empathy is reserved for the victims not the murderer.

Seathrun66

pjohnson wrote: »

My empathy is reserved for the victims not the murderer.

There's no hierarchy to suffering.

Pretzill

It's such a terribly tragic case - the woman was insane to do what she did but also guilty of doing it. I think that's what maybe rankles the most the 'not guilty' part of it. There are so many murder cases which would be deemed carried out by someone not in their right mind, psychotic, deranged - whatever. They still did it.

I worry more about how these people can go about their everyday lives without the services knowing how much of risk they are. Mental health services needs a huge amount of resources and new thinking - people can be dangerous, they can also be helped before they become so - the services are lacking - no person would willingly kill their own babies not unless they are truly taken over by a psychosis - shocking and depressing case.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

An insanity verdict for family killings is commonplace. Not a legal curio.

Yes thank you im aware

In day to day life you dont see a lot of childkillers empathised with and a large part of the defence come in as "well think of how she feels"

I think its a good thing, tbh, when a case gets this much interest and you see the disparity between what joe soap thinks is reasonable versus what powerful vested interests can come up with to keep the game going

And thats why i think "youse oiks clearly arent of the intellect nor bearing to understand what has happened and why" is hardly a fitting rejoinder.

People can see and understand what happened in court.

They just think its wrong.

Samsonsmasher

FileNotFound wrote: »

If your insane enough to do what she did one should never be released.

Again insanity means that at the time of an act the person didn't know what they were doing was wrong because of the extent of their mental condition. Having a mental condition is not an automatic excuse for commiting an act because people who are mentally ill usually still know right from wrong. If the person committed recovers they are no longer insane and should be released.