Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

Samsonsmasher

EDit wrote: »

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).

Once she is assessed by a mental health professional and found to be sane she is free to go. I presume not being a professional in that area that it is a lengthy process and a high bar must be reached.

Corby Trouser Press

silver2020 wrote: »

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that this needs to be changed and that once permission is given to discuss with immediate family, that it cannot be rescinded on a whim.

Good explanation of what I was trying to get my head around with people blaming this on the mental health services.

But there is a follow up question.

If someone is no longer speaking to a mental health professional in full confidence that would change what they are going to reveal.

Who would admit to feelings of wanting to kill themselves and their children if they knew their spouse was to hear this information also?

I don't really know what people expect of mental health services and how they could prevent this exactly.

Was she to be institutionalized indefinitely?

Medicated and kept away from her children forever?

What did people think should have been done exactly?

Underground

I find it absolutely amazing that (a) she could conceivably be a free woman after a few years of "care" and (b) people are in here defending someone who murdered 3 children.

Media treatment of her very interesting also.

smurgen

seamus wrote: »

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.

This post is bizarre you go on to be concerned about mental health at the end but start off saying people need their heads checked for anyone who feels entitled to have an opinion? We're in a democracy and people are entitled to opinions on how we threat those that are accused of serious crime.

JackTC

If she's let out now or in the near future she'll be attacked - Without question.

They'll have to keep her in the CMH for a certain number of years until they can start easing her into society, and even then it's risky.

Wanderer78

Underground wrote: »

I find it absolutely amazing that (a) she could conceivably be a free woman after a few years of "care" and (b) people are in here defending someone who murdered 3 children.

Media treatment of her very interesting also.

yes, the system found her to be innocent, and rightfully so, the disturbing entity of all this is the amount of people that dont have a clue about these complex mental health conditions, theres plenty of good sources out there explaining them, and also the fact, theres virtually no talk about what changes we as a society must do, in order to try prevent another such tragic outcome

Wanderer78

JackTC wrote: »

If she's let out now or in the near future she'll be attacked - Without question.

They'll have to keep her in the CMH at least for 5 years until they can start easing her into society, and even then it's risky.

do you have some professional opinion on these matters, where are you getting 5 years from?

Corby Trouser Press

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes, the system found her to be innocent, and rightfully so, the disturbing entity of all this is the amount of people that dont have a clue about these complex mental health conditions, theres plenty of good sources out there explaining them, and also the fact, theres virtually no talk about what changes we as a society must do, in order to try prevent another such tragic outcome

You start.

What changes exactly?

Antares35

Wanderer78 wrote: »

theres virtually no talk about what changes we as a society must do, in order to try prevent another such tragic outcome

Sorry how exactly is this "society's" fault? I'm sick of that card being rolled out all the time tbh.

smurgen

Sweet.Science wrote: »

She thought about taking her own life, but thought “I can’t leave the children.”

She wanted to get away and felt overwhelmed looking after the children. Her records noted that she “can’t manage children at all.”

Ms Morley described a fantasy “that I am in apartment in Paris, no children, just me”

All very hard to read and doesn't sit right . This wasn't a spontaneous breakdown / decision

This is curious. I had a relative who developed psychosis over a number of weeks and took her own life in a very violent way. Like Deirdre she had three young kids and got them ready for school the morning it happened. She didn't harm her kids.

Underground

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes, the system found her to be innocent, and rightfully so, the disturbing entity of all this is the amount of people that dont have a clue about these complex mental health conditions, theres plenty of good sources out there explaining them, and also the fact, theres virtually no talk about what changes we as a society must do, in order to try prevent another such tragic outcome

I would agree that we need to do more on the mental health front, the statement from the father said as much.

I think she should face consequences for her actions too though, the guilt of living with what she's done is nowhere near requisite punishment and being mentally ill shouldn't excuse one from such consequences. We all have our cross to bear.

JackTC

Wanderer78 wrote: »

do you have some professional opinion on these matters, where are you getting 5 years from?

Changed to " a certain number of years"

Nevertheless, it would be far too risky for her to be released now, or next year.

Faugheen

smurgen wrote: »

This is curious. I had a relative who developed psychosis over a number of weeks and took her own life in a very violent way. Like Deirdre she had three young kids and got them ready for school the morning it happened. She didn't harm her kids.

There isn’t one set way a psychosis patient acts...

Wanderer78

Corby Trouser Press wrote: »

You start.

What changes exactly?

Antares35 wrote: »

Sorry how exactly is this "society's" fault? I'm sick of that card being rolled out all the time tbh.

its clearly obvious we have multi system failure here, particularly with our health system, those that have suffered from such conditions, generally show signs of severe distress prior to these outcomes. we as a society should be thought how to recognise them, and all citizens should have ease of access to services that appropriately treat such conditions, before then get to such severity

Arbuckle

I find it very strange that people unqualified are on deciding what is and what isn't a mental health issue.

The lady IMO was in the middle of an episode at the time of this crime.

God bless and keep the children.

Nermal

Paddigol wrote: »

What's your basis for reaching these conclusions?

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

And you know this how?

Because the 'diagnosis' is made on behavioral observations and self-reported symptoms. There is no objective, scientific test that will determine if someone is insane or not.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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.

Twaddle. He has no way to tell whether he's been 'fooled' or not.

Samsonsmasher

Underground wrote: »

I would agree that we need to do more on the mental health front, the statement from the father said as much.

I think she should face consequences for her actions too though, the guilt of living with what she's done is nowhere near requisite punishment and being mentally ill shouldn't excuse one from such consequences. We all have our cross to bear.

She was not responsible for her actions because she was insane. What are you and other posters missing here?

Samsonsmasher

"Because the 'diagnosis' is made on behavioral observations and self-reported symptoms. There is no objective, scientific test that will determine if someone is insane or not."

Insanity is a legal term.
The jury of 12 decides insanity based on reasonable doubt

smurgen

Faugheen wrote: »

There isn’t one set way a psychosis patient acts...

Exactly meaning saying someone had psychosis isn't just the end explanation for what happened. It's not a logical conclusion that kids are killed when someone has psychosis.

Underground

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

She was not responsible for her actions because she was insane. What are you and other posters missing here?

Yeah, I got that part thanks. Some justice for three innocent children wouldn't go amiss though would it?

Sorry, I don't share this view that insanity is a literal get out of jail free card.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its clearly obvious we have multi system failure here, particularly with our health system, those that have suffered from such conditions, generally show signs of severe distress prior to these outcomes. we as a society should be thought how to recognise them, and all citizens should have ease of access to services that appropriately treat such conditions, before then get to such severity

Lol. The clamour to blame society is palpable.

We as a society should be taught to recognise severe distress in others.... Ok, then what?

Will all citizens be trained to such a degree to recognise these signals that they are qualified to intervene in someone else's life?

Everyone should have immediate access to which services exactly? Who pays for it?

Absolute horse****.

Society is not to blame here.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol. The clamour to blame society is palpable.

We as a society should be taught to recognise severe distress in others.... Ok, then what?

Will all citizens be trained to such a degree to recognise these signals that they are qualified to intervene in someone else's life?

Everyone should have immediate access to which services exactly? Who pays for it?

Absolute horse****.

Society is not to blame here.

fine, lets keep everything as it is, and if a loved one, or even ourselves, fall to such situations, fcuk it!

we as citizens, owe it to ourselves, our loved ones, and even to the complete strangers on the street, to educate ourselves, and to advocate for the education of all, to simply, save lives, including our own

yes, its perfectly fine to intervene, if necessary, as doing so, might just save lives!

ah yea, the ould, who ll pay for it, creating money is not a problem, we have figured out how to create almost endless amounts of the stuff, not exactly problem free of course, but yes, it can be done

horsesh1t! i think not!

Arbuckle

Arbuckle wrote: »

I find it very strange that people unqualified are on deciding what is and what isn't a mental health issue.

The lady IMO was in the middle of an episode at the time of this crime.

God bless and keep the children.

I find it strange that you are giving out about people giving their opinion and then immediately offer up yours.

God sure had his eye off the ball when this happened.

Nermal

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Insanity is a legal term.
The jury of 12 decides insanity based on reasonable doubt

Perhaps the jury should be informed that the 'expert' evidence they have heard doesn't have any scientific basis.

They might have arrived at a different conclusion.

Or perhaps we might take a leap out of the thirteenth century and abolish this type of verdict entirely.

suicide_circus

I wonder are there any circumstances under which a mother who murdered her three children would be considered sane? The mind is such a nebulous and complex matter that even professionals are clutching at straws.

BorneTobyWilde

Arbuckle wrote: »

I find it very strange that people unqualified are on deciding what is and what isn't a mental health issue.

The lady IMO was in the middle of an episode at the time of this crime.

God bless and keep the children.

You see a lot of comments like his, and everyone will agree. But how is it that '' good' is so easy to believe in, while '' evil'' is not.
Beautiful funeral, laid to rest by priest in a church, so many thoughts and prays, so many comments about the kids in heaven.

Yet if you suggest evil is responsible for what happened people label you
'' insane''
But how can you believe in one side and not the other, the bible speaks of fallen angels, who rebel against God and possess others into evil acts, a demon or spirit, who have complete power over someone, manifested through their speech or actions.
I dunno what came over her, but in that moment the verdict is she wasn't in control of her own thoughts and actions.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

fine, lets keep everything as it is, and if a loved one, or even ourselves, fall to such situations, fcuk it!

we as citizens, owe it to ourselves, our loved ones, and even to the complete strangers on the street, to educate ourselves, and to advocate for the education of all, to simply, save lives, including our own

yes, its perfectly fine to intervene, if necessary, as doing so, might just save lives!

ah yea, the ould, who ll pay for it, creating money is not a problem, we have figured out how to create almost endless amounts of the stuff, not exactly problem free of course, but yes, it can be done

horsesh1t! i think not!

You think that you would have to right to intervene in my life because you have decided that I might be showing signs of severe distress?

How exactly will you intervene? Report me to some government department who will conduct checks on me and my family? What level of proof would you need in order to intervene?

Lol. I, as a citizen, owe you absolutely nothing. You look after you and your own, leave me and mine alone thanks.

And sure, yeah money is easy to come by. Especially to give EVERY citizen an intensive course in psychology so they can keep an eye out.


I

Arbuckle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find it strange that you are giving out about people giving their opinion and then immediately offer up yours.

God sure had his eye off the ball when this happened.

I have no problem with people giving their opinion. But stating THIS IS NOT a mental illness isn't an opinion its passing something off as fact.

Arbuckle

Arbuckle wrote: »

I have no problem with people giving their opinion. But stating THIS IS NOT a mental illness isn't an opinion its passing something off as fact.

If they threw an IMO in, would that suffice?

Gael23

There are no winners in cases like this, criminal charfes won’t change that.

I think it brings up issues like the Mental Health act and how courts treat fathers, perhaps he felt he wouldn’t be allowed take the kids if he left