Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

JimmyVik

Im confused.
Which one of you doesnt understand here?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the terms you are using.

Both sociopaths and psychopaths understand right and wrong it's just they don't obey the law. Sociopaths have a conscience and are remorseful but still commit criminal behavior. Psychopaths have no conscience because they have no emotions like fear or love or remorse and don't care who they hurt.
A sociopath or psychopath could develop psychosis and insanity but most are not insane.
They know right from wrong.

A person can be highly organized and commit an act which involves detailed planning but still be insane at the time.

You are simply wrong and do not know what you are talking about.

tobefrank321 wrote: »

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-sociopath-380184

[While psychopaths are classified as people with little or no conscience, sociopaths do have a limited, albeit weak, ability to feel empathy and remorse. Psychopaths can and do follow social conventions when it suits their needs. Sociopaths are more likely to fly off the handle and react violently whenever they're confronted by the consequences of their actions.]

Sociopaths have limited empathy. Psychpaths have next to none.

Like I said people often confuse insanity and sociopathy or psychopathy. There can be a fine line. Some medical professionals claimed Alan Hawe was insane for example. Numerous dictators have been labelled insane including the most infamous one. But a socio or psychopath is not insane, even if they perpetrate insane acts such as familicide.

seamus

I think anyone who feels entitled to have an opinion on whether Deirdre Morley should ever go free, should go get their own heads checked.

The whole thing is insanely complex and difficult, we can only trust in the experts on what to do next.

What we as the public need to take away from this is just how dire a state our mental health services are in. So many lives have been lost in this country because the mental health services were not there when they were needed.

If people were dying at home from serious injuries because they were told that A&E only operates Monday-Friday, we'd be out on the streets in protest.

But people are dying at home because they reach out to mental health services and get told there's no-one available.

Just 5% of the HSE's budget is spent on mental health. That needs to drastically increase.

Samsonsmasher

silverharp wrote: »

at the end of the day "insane" is just a word for a category that isnt absolute. If you picked up any psychology book and looked for a particular term, one book would say...here are the 5 essential traits of X , another Psychologist will write a book that describes the 8 essential traits of the same X...huh? where did the other 3 come from?

Wrong again.

If it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt in court that a person accused of a crime did not know right from wrong at the time they committed an act they were insane and not responsible for what they did.

Ellie2008

firemansam4 wrote: »

It really is a tragic case and horrific case.

I can understand both points of view on this, on the one hand its incomprehensible what she did, how could the mother, the most important person in their lives commit such a horrific act against them? I can certainly see why people would not want to show her any sympathy and would wish her to suffer for what she has done.

But then on the other side I have to think what sane person could possibly do this to their own children? from all accounts her children meant the world to her yet something inside her made her perform these most horrific acts on them.
I really just cant see how she could have been of sound mind to do this.
And it seems that experts in the field have come to this conclusion also.

Having said that I dont think she should ever be released into society again or at least not for a very large portion of her life anyway.
This may be a controversial thing to say but if she is still of the mind of wanting to kill herself it might actually be in her best interests to let her do it.

Well for the sake of our society I hope that no medical professional in the CMH or otherwise would allow someone to kill themselves.

Baggly

JimmyVik wrote: »

She had a husband and 3 children to support her.

JimmyVik wrote: »

Wonder do the kids cousins feel they might have had a lucky escape on the sleepovers.

Mod

Dont post in this thread again.

Jequ0n

tobefrank321 wrote: »

A sociopath probably wouldn't know right from wrong. An egomaniac probably would but wouldn't care. There's a fine line between these and insanity. People often debate if dictators of the past were insane or just sociopaths but most were in the latter category.

For me anything that involves a significant amont of long term, detailed and relatively logical planning is not insanity. The act may appear insane but the planning isn't.

People with ASPD know right from wrong but may chose to ignore these lines. There is a lot of misinformation on this topic.
I agree with you that there is a significant difference between different conditions and what qualifies as “insanity”.

Ellie2008

All the stuff about her nursing career is melodramatic to say the least. It’s highly highly unlikely that any hospital would hire her if she did manage to stay on the register.
There is also zero evidence, nada that she ever harmed a patient in fact she worried about her patients while she wasn’t in work.
Having suffered from work related stress myself I really felt for her when I read that.
She seemed overwhelmed at work & at home.

Samsonsmasher

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Not a hope of her returning to normal life any time soon. That would make for a very dangerous precedent and encourage more Alan Hawes. Kill your family, claim insanity, then sanity after a few years to be allowed out. No thanks. This woman should spend most of the rest of her life in some sort of confinement.

That not how the system works nor has it ever worked that way.

An insane person is not responsible for what they did when they lost their ability to know right from wrong.

When they recover their sanity they are free to go.

tobefrank321

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Wrong again.

If it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt in court that a person accused of a crime did not know right from wrong at the time they committed an act they were insane and not responsible for what they did.

Do you know how easy it is to feign not knowing right from wrong? It just takes a few simple lies.

How about this?
"I killed Joe Soap because I thought I was doing the right thing and god etc told me to do it"

tobefrank321

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

That not how the system works nor has it ever worked that way.

An insane person is not responsible for what they did when they lost their ability to know right from wrong.

When they recover their sanity they are free to go.

Do you think a person with a history of episodes of murderous insanity should be released when they appear to be "sane" again? Of course not. They have a medical history of breakdowns and may always pose a risk.

Thank goodness you don't decide who is released when.

One eyed Jack

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you need to do more research so, for your own benefit and for the benefit of your loved ones, we do not know the current state of this womans health, id like to think she is receiving the appropriate care, and is now safe to return to as normal life as possible. we as onlookers do not have the right to make judgments on her well being, and her ability to live a normal life amongst us, we must trust the legal and health systems to make such a judgment. yes her actions were horrendous, but it shows how much of a destressed state she was in, and we as a society did not react, we all should be reflecting on this fact!

Is it because you’re hoping this woman is now receiving appropriate care and is now safe to return to as normal a life as possible that you feel it’s acceptable for you to judge, while expecting that anyone who doesn’t share your opinion isn’t in a position to judge her actions, or the legal and health systems which have utterly failed the children in this case? Society is not responsible for her actions. This woman is entirely responsible for her actions, and I’m well aware of the standard required for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. It means she was found not guilty of having committed murder. It doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible for the children’s deaths.

I wasn’t going to comment on the thread, but I’d detest that narrative of society being held responsible for the actions of individuals within that society to gain any traction. Society is not responsible for her actions, and everyone has every right to decide whether or not the individual in question has the ability to live a normal life among us. I honestly don’t know why you think she deserves to live a normal life after what she’s done, or why anyone should accept the idea that she should be able to live a normal life after what she’s done.

There is no “we as a society” when it comes to being responsible for the actions of individuals within that society. I’m certainly not in any way, shape or form responsible for her actions. It’s because we do trust the health and legal systems to protect us that a case like this highlights the fact that those same systems are letting society down badly. In this case it led to the deaths of three children at the hands of one individual, and yes people can judge that individual for their actions. They don’t have to accept the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals or anyone else, they don’t even have to accept the opinions of her husband. Because other people choose to find excuses for her behaviour does not mean anyone else has to engage in the same sort of soul searching or collective guilt. I don’t hold anyone else responsible for the deaths of the children in this case, only the person who killed them.

tobefrank321

Ellie2008 wrote: »

All the stuff about her nursing career is melodramatic to say the least. It’s highly highly unlikely that any hospital would hire her if she did manage to stay on the register.
There is also zero evidence, nada that she ever harmed a patient in fact she worried about her patients while she wasn’t in work.
Having suffered from work related stress myself I really felt for her when I read that.
She seemed overwhelmed at work & at home.

Millions of people here and elsewhere are overwhelmed. Its no excuse.

Its not difficult to go on leave from work. And if she was unhappy at home, she could have asked for a separation. Instead she picked the worst option and seemed to be methodical in the build up.

B.A._Baracus

Never heard of this before the thread. Reading up about it now and ah that's bleeding sad. Sad all around. Poor husband because he is the one that will have to live with this.

Cause let's be honest, after being declared legally insane she's just gonna be doped up in the mental hospital. He is the one who is gonna have to live his life day by day.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it because you’re hoping this woman is now receiving appropriate care and is now safe to return to as normal a life as possible that you feel it’s acceptable for you to judge, while expecting that anyone who doesn’t share your opinion isn’t in a position to judge her actions, or the legal and health systems which have utterly failed the children in this case? Society is not responsible for her actions. This woman is entirely responsible for her actions, and I’m well aware of the standard required for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. It means she was found not guilty of having committed murder. It doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible for the children’s deaths.

I wasn’t going to comment on the thread, but I’d detest that narrative of society being held responsible for the actions of individuals within that society to gain any traction. Society is not responsible for her actions, and everyone has every right to decide whether or not the individual in question has the ability to live a normal life among us. I honestly don’t know why you think she deserves to live a normal life after what she’s done, or why anyone should accept the idea that she should be able to live a normal life after what she’s done.

There is no “we as a society” when it comes to being responsible for the actions of individuals within that society. I’m certainly not in any way, shape or form responsible for her actions. It’s because we do trust the health and legal systems to protect us that a case like this highlights the fact that those same systems are letting society down badly. In this case it led to the deaths of three children at the hands of one individual, and yes people can judge that individual for their actions. They don’t have to accept the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals or anyone else, they don’t even have to accept the opinions of her husband. Because other people choose to find excuses for her behaviour does not mean anyone else has to engage in the same sort of soul searching or collective guilt. I don’t hold anyone else responsible for the deaths of the children in this case, only the person who killed them.

Must be a full moon or something...... I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you Jack.

Ellie2008

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Millions of people here and elsewhere are overwhelmed. Its no excuse.

Its not difficult to go on leave from work. And if she was unhappy at home, she could have asked for a separation. Instead she picked the worst option and seemed to be methodical in the build up.

To clarify I’m not of the view that it is an excuse.

joe40

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Do you know how easy it is to feign not knowing right from wrong? It just takes a few simple lies.

How about this?
"I killed Joe Soap because I thought I was doing the right thing and god etc told me to do it"

The not guilty due to insanity is extremely rare and difficult to prove. In most cases both prosecution and defence accept the plea. it is still up to a jury to decide.
I'll try to get actual figures but I know they are low.

This idea that psychiatrists and lawyers can be easily hoodwinked is just simply not borne out in reality.

silverharp

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

If it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt in court that a person accused of a crime did not know right from wrong at the time they committed an act they were insane and not responsible for what they did.

A legal decision isnt the same as having opinions on how reality is captured for want of a better term. can you prove for a fact that if all psychologists and psychiatrists on the planet reviewed this case , they would all go ..oh its a no brainer, absolutely text book? I'd prefer to be on the other side of that bet

silver2020

Mullinabreena wrote: »

Was Deirdre Morley originally from Dublin? I wonder had she much family support around her in the build up to this tragedy?

She's from Walkinstown, has great support around her and close to her brothers and sisters and obviously her husband.

The problem was that she did not confide in them how ill she was (people can be very good putting on an outward show of normality) and her psychiatrists were prevented under patient confidentiality in discussing their concerns that she had actually dis-improved and they were of the opinion that she had suicidal tendencies and should be re-admitted to St Patrick's when the outward signs were that she had improved.

Unfortunately they were unable to voice those concerns to others outside the clinical team

The father is suggesting that this needs to be changed and that once permission is given to discuss with immediate family, that it cannot be rescinded on a whim.

Antares35

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

I never said she should be allowed to care for children again. However if she recovers her sanity and is not longer mentally ill she is free to go obviously.

But why wouldn't she be allowed to? If she gets all better and is no longer insane? She's either better or she's not.

frosty123

I reckon alot of us have undiagnosed mental ailments that we're not aware of, I say quite a sizeable percentage too.

Not saying we'd go to the same extremes as in this case but if not treated who knows where it will eventually lead to, that's why early detection is critical before it takes root.

Nermal

joe40 wrote: »

This idea that psychiatrists and lawyers can be easily hoodwinked is just simply not borne out in reality.

Incorrect. We have no way to know.

It is not possible to reliably distinguish someone pretending to be insane from someone who is 'genuinely' insane, and vice-versa.

The concept doesn't have scientific meaning, regardless of how much scientific-sounding vocabulary and artifice is draped around it.

Paddigol

Nermal wrote: »

Incorrect. We have no way to know.

It is not possible to reliably distinguish someone pretending to be insane from someone who is 'genuinely' insane, and vice-versa.

The concept doesn't have scientific meaning, regardless of how much scientific-sounding vocabulary and artifice is draped around it.

What's your basis for reaching these conclusions?

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is it because you’re hoping this woman is now receiving appropriate care and is now safe to return to as normal a life as possible that you feel it’s acceptable for you to judge, while expecting that anyone who doesn’t share your opinion isn’t in a position to judge her actions, or the legal and health systems which have utterly failed the children in this case? Society is not responsible for her actions. This woman is entirely responsible for her actions, and I’m well aware of the standard required for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. It means she was found not guilty of having committed murder. It doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible for the children’s deaths.

I wasn’t going to comment on the thread, but I’d detest that narrative of society being held responsible for the actions of individuals within that society to gain any traction. Society is not responsible for her actions, and everyone has every right to decide whether or not the individual in question has the ability to live a normal life among us. I honestly don’t know why you think she deserves to live a normal life after what she’s done, or why anyone should accept the idea that she should be able to live a normal life after what she’s done.

There is no “we as a society” when it comes to being responsible for the actions of individuals within that society. I’m certainly not in any way, shape or form responsible for her actions. It’s because we do trust the health and legal systems to protect us that a case like this highlights the fact that those same systems are letting society down badly. In this case it led to the deaths of three children at the hands of one individual, and yes people can judge that individual for their actions. They don’t have to accept the opinions of medical professionals, legal professionals or anyone else, they don’t even have to accept the opinions of her husband. Because other people choose to find excuses for her behaviour does not mean anyone else has to engage in the same sort of soul searching or collective guilt. I don’t hold anyone else responsible for the deaths of the children in this case, only the person who killed them.

Whether we accept it or not that would appear to be the legal position. I'm open to correction here, but my understanding is if she ever reaches the stage where she is deemed mentally well then she can be released, with supervision at first.
The flip side is unlike a prison term, if she is not deemed mentally well, then she can be locked up indefinitely.
As far as I know that is the position.

I honestly don't see anyone suggesting "collective guilt" for this crime. Failings in mental health provision are a valid issue for debate, it leads to very real loss of life every year through suicide or killings like this.

Samsonsmasher

Nermal wrote: »

Incorrect. We have no way to know.

It is not possible to reliably distinguish someone pretending to be insane from someone who is 'genuinely' insane, and vice-versa.

The concept doesn't have scientific meaning, regardless of how much scientific-sounding vocabulary and artifice is draped around it.

And you know this how?

CiDeRmAn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Judging by some on here, that would be harsh as, on her release, she is no longer insane and has recovered.

Time in treatment will not just include time as a detained person in the National Forensic Hospital, it will include the her likely rest of life in outpatient treatment, which would likely be part of her release, many years from now.
She will be monitored for the rest of her life, in all likelihood.
And her actions, illness and treatment will preclude her from a host of jobs, as any of the type people seem to be concerned about will have disclosure due to the vetting process

joe40

Nermal wrote: »

Incorrect. We have no way to know.

It is not possible to reliably distinguish someone pretending to be insane from someone who is 'genuinely' insane, and vice-versa.

The concept doesn't have scientific meaning, regardless of how much scientific-sounding vocabulary and artifice is draped around it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity-inside-the-central-mental-hospital-1.3544665

This was posted earlier in the thread.
I'm posting it again because I think It is well worth a read for anyone interested in this case, regardless of your position.

Samsonsmasher

frosty123 wrote: »

I reckon alot of us have undiagnosed mental ailments that we're not aware of, I say quite a sizeable percentage too.

Not saying we'd go to the same extremes as in this case but if not treated who knows where it will eventually lead to, that's why early detection is critical before it takes root.

And how is this early detection supposed to happen? Most people who show no outward signs of mental illness. Unless there is conduct noticed by family friends and work colleagues it goes unnoticed. They don't come to the attention of the Gardaí until they break the law.

Samsonsmasher

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Do you know how easy it is to feign not knowing right from wrong? It just takes a few simple lies.

How about this?
"I killed Joe Soap because I thought I was doing the right thing and god etc told me to do it"

A psychiatrist trained to assess a person who has committed an act determines if they know right from wrong.

EDit

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

That not how the system works nor has it ever worked that way.

An insane person is not responsible for what they did when they lost their ability to know right from wrong.

When they recover their sanity they are free to go.

You’ve said this a few times now and the language you use implies that this is a quick and easy process. I don’t work in this field and have limited knowledge of severe mental issues, but common sense would suggest that deciding that someone previously insane is now sane would be a long and intricate process that takes years.

For example, presumably this woman was sane for most of her life before becoming insane and committing this crime, so what triggered that change? Any psychiatrist working with her would need to be 100% sure that that trigger would not arise again or that, if it did, she was able to respond differently. Surely that alone would be very hard to establish in a short period of time (hence the likelihood that she will be incarcerated for a very long time).

iamwhoiam

joe40 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity-inside-the-central-mental-hospital-1.3544665

This was posted earlier in the thread.
I'm posting it again because I think It is well worth a read for anyone interested in this case, regardless of your position.

Thank you for that link .I read it with interest and with admiration for the professional staff .This paragraph stood out for me and might interest others .


The pressure on the service means it is technically possible someone could fool the system before their trial, but Kennedy says it is not something he has seen. “The problem is actually that the prisons are full of far more people than we have that are severely mentally ill.”

O’Neill and Heylin on the review board are even more certain it can’t be done, partly because there is little incentive to do it. The CMH is a much more difficult place to get out of than prison. Last year just two out of 83 patients reviewed were released unconditionally. A further four were released under strict conditions and one of those was later recalled.