Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

Homelander

What really amazes me is the people who have zero empathy for the complexity of severe mental health difficulties, like in this case.

People can have a severe or debilitating mental episode and take horrible actions, or make decisions, that they would never undertake normally, and at that point in time it would seem entirely rational to what they still feel is a sane mind.

You just cannot apply the rationale of a logical mind to someone going through an episode or protracted struggle with mental health. It doesn't work that way. It also doesn't make what she did any less wrong, but to dismiss it as "**** her, she killed three kids, hope she rots" is astoundingly ignorant.

Not even her husband believes that, and you're talking about a man who lost absolutely everything that day. His wife, his three kids, everything he had lived for and worked towards - everything stolen, all at once, in a matter of minutes. A burden he will carry every day for the rest of his life, whatever he can make of it, the poor man.

Yet he can accept that, despite all the pain, his wife was a very, very ill woman and not "herself" when she committed such a terrible act. It's not that he has to forgive her, or that "mental health" is automatically a defence for despicable acts, but there's complexity in this case way, way beyond "evil person did evil thing".

Sad that that poor man who has suffered the most has more understanding and empathy than so many anonymous people here who would rather see her crucified and speared.

Samsonsmasher

Underground wrote: »

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.

No.
You clearly don't get it.
Let me educate you?
Murder is the intentional taking of a human life contrary to the law.
A person who is so mentally ill they no longer know right from wrong cannot intentionally commit murder and are by definition not responsible for their actions.
That's the law in Ireland and around the world.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

JP Liz V1

I still think the killing of the eldest child, the planning should have been tried imho as murder, I do question our justice system at times

It is a very highly emotive case especially with precious innocent children as the victims so everyone will have a strong opinion on it

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for Deirdre and before I get attacked, I have suffered from mental health issues and have close relatives with severe mental health issues some who thought suicide was their way out

I do for the father, families and friends and the jury who had to listen to the horrific details despite the judge telling them the verdict ultimately

Samsonsmasher

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

Sure. If a mother who killed her kids is assessed by a psychiatrist and found to be sane.

Samsonsmasher

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I still think the killing of the eldest child, the planning should have been tried imho as murder, I do question our justice system at times

It is a very highly emotive case especially with precious innocent children as the victims so everyone will have a strong opinion on it

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for Deirdre and before I get attacked, I have suffered from mental health issues and have close relatives with severe mental health issues some who thought suicide was their way out

I do for the father, families and friends and the jury who had to listen to the horrific details despite the judge telling them the verdict ultimately

Based on what evidence? You think? So what? The psychiatrist assessed her. She was insane. You don't know what your talking about.

joe40

Nermal wrote: »

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.

So Psychiatric medicine has no "scientific basis"

Homelander

Homelander wrote: »

What really amazes me is the people who have zero empathy for the complexity of severe mental health difficulties, like in this case.

People can have a severe or debilitating mental episode and take horrible actions, or make decisions, that they would never undertake normally, and at that point in time it would seem entirely rational to what they still feel is a sane mind.

You just cannot apply the rationale of a logical mind to someone going through an episode or protracted struggle with mental health. It doesn't work that way. It also doesn't make what she did any less wrong, but to dismiss it as "**** her, she killed three kids, hope she rots" is astoundingly ignorant.

Not even her husband believes that, and you're talking about a man who lost absolutely everything that day. His wife, his three kids, everything he had lived for and worked towards - everything stolen, all at once, in a matter of minutes. A burden he will carry every day for the rest of his life, whatever he can make of it, the poor man.

Yet he can accept that, despite all the pain, his wife was a very, very ill woman and not "herself" when she committed such a terrible act. It's not that he has to forgive her, or that "mental health" is automatically a defence for despicable acts, but there's complexity in this case way, way beyond "evil person did evil thing".

Sad that that poor man who has suffered the most has more understanding and empathy than so many anonymous people here who would rather see her crucified and speared.

It amazes you that people can't empathise with a woman who killed her three kids?

I find it even more bizarre that people do.

Underground

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

No.
You clearly don't get it.
Let me educate you?
Murder is the intentional taking of a human life contrary to the law.
A person who is so mentally ill they no longer know right from wrong cannot intentionally commit murder and are by definition not responsible for their actions.
That's the law in Ireland and around the world.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

You must have missed all the posts earlier in the thread discussing how eerily premeditated her actions looked. But thank you for the legal lesson, oh wise one.

Homelander

Homelander wrote: »

What really amazes me is the people who have zero empathy for the complexity of severe mental health difficulties, like in this case.

People can have a severe or debilitating mental episode and take horrible actions, or make decisions, that they would never undertake normally, and at that point in time it would seem entirely rational to what they still feel is a sane mind.

You just cannot apply the rationale of a logical mind to someone going through an episode or protracted struggle with mental health. It doesn't work that way. It also doesn't make what she did any less wrong, but to dismiss it as "**** her, she killed three kids, hope she rots" is astoundingly ignorant.

Not even her husband believes that, and you're talking about a man who lost absolutely everything that day. His wife, his three kids, everything he had lived for and worked towards - everything stolen, all at once, in a matter of minutes. A burden he will carry every day for the rest of his life, whatever he can make of it, the poor man.

Yet he can accept that, despite all the pain, his wife was a very, very ill woman and not "herself" when she committed such a terrible act. It's not that he has to forgive her, or that "mental health" is automatically a defence for despicable acts, but there's complexity in this case way, way beyond "evil person did evil thing".

Sad that that poor man who has suffered the most has more understanding and empathy than so many anonymous people here who would rather see her crucified and speared.

This thread is testament to the long road ahead of us regarding mental health.

Sweet.Science

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.

These are always strange takes . Everyone is entitled to an opinion . Otherwise all I can discuss is what I do for a living

One eyed Jack

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

The legal system doesn’t find anyone to be innocent when charged with a criminal offence? In this particular case the verdict was not guilty by reason of insanity to the charge of murder.

Because people don’t share your opinion doesn’t mean they haven’t a clue about complex mental health conditions, it only means they don’t share your perspective. It’s completely unreasonable to suggest that people should be conscious of the idea that they are in any way responsible for an individual’s actions when they choose to kill their own children. It’s outside the scope of a reasonable person’s thoughts, which is why the verdict returned in this case was not guilty by reason of insanity.

It’s also the reason why there’s no talk of “what changes we as a society must do” in order to prevent the circumstances where a parent could kill their own children, not only because those circumstances are incredibly rare, but also because individuals are held responsible for their own actions, and they are responsible for not letting the circumstances they are in get to a point where they experience a psychotic break and kill their own children. All the help was there, she chose not to avail of it.

Even experts who were familiar with the individual in question were unable to foresee that she would kill her own children, so I don’t know how you could expect that ordinary people would ever be able to prevent someone else from doing so. Conflating the outcome in this particular case with more common circumstances of people experiencing ill mental health is nothing more than an attempt to deflect responsibility from the individual in question for the consequences of her own actions.

SAMTALK

I know nothing of what this woman was going through, same as everyone here.

All I can think is that a mother of 3 children to do such a thing could not possible be in the right frame of mind, but we don't know anything about them or their lives . It is very easy to label her evil and yes whilst reading the story that word did come to my mind but then to imagine doing such a thing leads me to think that no sane person could do this to their own children.

All I really know it was one of the most harrowing stories I ever read and my sympathies to all involved.

Nermal

joe40 wrote: »

So Psychiatric medicine has no "scientific basis"

Putting words in my mouth.

I said: diagnosis based on self-reported symptoms, or based on behavioural observation when the subject knows or expects they are being observed, has no real scientific value.

We shouldn't give it any legal value either.

Faugheen

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.

It’s also defamatory considering she is still alive.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread is testament to the long road ahead of us regarding mental health.

How? How in the name of God does it?

You can't move without being bombarded with mental health awareness and every second week seems to be dedicated to awareness.

How is this thread an example?

Because people don't feel sorry for a woman who killed her three children in a premeditated way because she was suffering from mental illness?

Should we always be mindful and respectful to anyone suffering from mental health regardless of their actions?

Perhaps people would take mental health more seriously if it wasn't bandied about so recklessly and used as an excuse at every turn

Ffs, being on Bressie so, let's get this mental health awareness ramped up.

Wanderer78

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The legal system doesn’t find anyone to be innocent when charged with a criminal offence? In this particular case the verdict was not guilty by reason of insanity to the charge of murder.

Because people don’t share your opinion doesn’t mean they haven’t a clue about complex mental health conditions, it only means they don’t share your perspective. It’s completely unreasonable to suggest that people should be conscious of the idea that they are in any way responsible for an individual’s actions when they choose to kill their own children. It’s outside the scope of a reasonable person’s thoughts, which is why the verdict returned in this case was not guilty by reason of insanity.

It’s also the reason why there’s no talk of “what changes we as a society must do” in order to prevent the circumstances where a parent could kill their own children, not only because those circumstances are incredibly rare, but also because individuals are held responsible for their own actions, and they are responsible for not letting the circumstances they are in get to a point where they experience a psychotic break and kill their own children. All the help was there, she chose not to avail of it.

Even experts who were familiar with the individual in question were unable to foresee that she would kill her own children, so I don’t know how you could expect that ordinary people would ever be able to prevent someone else from doing so. Conflating the outcome in this particular case with more common circumstances of people experiencing ill mental health is nothing more than an attempt to deflect responsibility from the individual in question for the consequences of her own actions.

fcuking hell! where are we in regards mental health issues, if some have these type of views!

first google search! its not rocket science folks!

https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/what-is-psychosis#:~:text=Psychosis%20is%20a%20condition%20that,or%20trauma%20can%20cause%20it.

if you are effectively removed from reality psychologically, how do you know what to do, or even whats going on?????

Lillyfae

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't move without being bombarded with mental health awareness and every second week seems to be dedicated to awareness.

Perhaps people would take mental health more seriously if it wasn't bandied about so recklessly and used as an excuse at every turn

Ffs, being on Bressie so, let's get this mental health awareness ramped up.

Maybe if more people realised that "Mental Health" is one of the most important issues facing society today and that the term "Mental Health" is full of other terms like "Depression" "Suicide" "PTSD" "OCD" "Bipolar" and "Personality Disorder" which make it a spectrum, not the "bless you" response to emotional sneezing that it seems to be then adequate resources would be available by now

iamwhoiam

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I still think the killing of the eldest child, the planning should have been tried imho as murder, I do question our justice system at times

You can be insane and stil plan something meticulously you know .

Sweet.Science

I don't know what im missing here

She didnt want her kids around for years
Dreamt of being without them. This was all before her insanity kicked in

Then when it did she planned their murder . Failed once . Planned again . Succeeded

It really just comes back to the hot take that she's their mother and not their father

That will be brushed off and ridiculed as the classic response . That it's more complex and fools like me just wouldn't understand.

It's true though

JP Liz V1

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Based on what evidence? You think? So what? The psychiatrist assessed her. She was insane. You don't know what your talking about.

We can all have an opinion on this just because it is not the same as you

Psychiatrists have got things wrong in the past

Taeholic

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Based on what evidence? You think? So what? The psychiatrist assessed her. She was insane. You don't know what your talking about.

You know we are all allowed have different opinions based on the same evidence presented right? Regardless of whether you agree with said opinion or not, the poster is entitled to discuss matters from their own perspective. That is the point of a forum.

Samsonsmasher

Underground wrote: »

You must have missed all the posts earlier in the thread discussing how eerily premeditated her actions looked. But thank you for the legal lesson, oh wise one.

Her actions were driven by her mental illness which caused her to lose touch with right and wrong

Samsonsmasher

Taeholic wrote: »

You know we are all allowed have different opinions based on the same evidence presented right? Regardless of whether you agree with said opinion or not, the poster is entitled to discuss matters from their own perspective. That is the point of a forum.

No. The evidence is not open to interpretation. Things happen only one way. The lady was insane when she killed her children. She is not responsibile for her actions. That is a matter of fact. Not opinion.

Gatling

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

On what basis should a patient be locked up for the rest of their life is they are insane at the time of the killings and recover after treatment?
You are aware that people are released from the CMH routinely?

Including one who walked out the front door after shooting dead two people , jumped on a train to the north and lived a decent life and wanted to now declared sane and innocent of his crime,
She murdered 3 kids guilty but insane isn't enough , stabilise her condition and she should be detained indefinitely

silver2020

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol, I'd love to see her try and sue.

You seems to have a very unhealthy interest in this case. Your post counts is in the dozens and the posts show an embarrassing lack of empathy to anyone and you seems to be more expert than some of the best psychiatrists out there.

I suspect there's some hidden agenda

Samsonsmasher

Gatling wrote: »

Including one who walked out the front door after shooting dead two people , jumped on a train to the north and lived a decent life and wanted to now declared sane and innocent of his crime,
She murdered 3 kids guilty but insane isn't enough , stabilise her condition and she should be detained indefinitely

If a person commits a crime while insane and recovers they are not responsible for their actions and can go free.

One eyed Jack

Wanderer78 wrote: »

fcuking hell! where are we in regards mental health issues, if some have these type of views!

first google search! its not rocket science folks!

https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/what-is-psychosis#:~:text=Psychosis%20is%20a%20condition%20that,or%20trauma%20can%20cause%20it.

if you are effectively removed from reality psychologically, how do you know what to do, or even whats going on?????

Where we are with regards to mental health issues is that we don’t start conflating a psychotic break with ill mental health or other psychological conditions in order to excuse people for their behaviour or equate killing children with suicide. They’re completely different circumstances. Suicide prevention is an entirely different area of mental healthcare than criminal behaviour, the key distinction being that suicide is not a crime, murder on the other hand, is. How, in your opinion, should society regard parents who kill their own children?

Conflating the circumstances in this particular case with the ongoing issues in the healthcare and legal system in Ireland is a deflection from holding individuals responsible for their own actions, behaviours and attitudes. A qualified paediatric nurse who would undoubtedly have an understanding of the importance of their mental health, because of their own attitude to mental health decides to keep it hidden, and takes the lives of her three children as a result… and you think society is responsible for her actions? Perhaps start your campaign with the people who claim other people have no understanding of mental health issues, because they appear to be the people who need it the most.

Ellie2008

Nermal wrote: »

Putting words in my mouth.

I said: diagnosis based on self-reported symptoms, or based on behavioural observation when the subject knows or expects they are being observed, has no real scientific value.

We shouldn't give it any legal value either.

Psychiatry is far far from an exact science. I have no doubt that the two experts of very well trained & have vast experience. That doesn’t mean their opinion is infallible or beyond question.

Ms. Morley made more than one statement that would cause me to question the insanity verdict. I completely accept that she was mentally ill, there is ample evidence to support that. But to me there are suggestions in some of her statements that she did know what she was as doing was wrong, particularly regarding the killing of her oldest son. I’m not sure if she was a woman in a fully delusional state who thought she’d damaged her kids, or a woman under a lot of pressure who cracked. To me only the former is insanity as I can see what it might lead someone to kill their children.

I note that her husband accepts the insanity finding & I understand that. I also feel a great deal of sympathy for her.

Samsonsmasher

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Psychiatry is far far from an exact science. I have no doubt that the two experts of very well trained & have vast experience. That doesn’t mean their opinion is infallible or beyond question.

Ms. Morley made more than one statement that would cause me to question the insanity verdict. I completely accept that she was mentally ill, there is ample evidence to support that. But to me there are suggestions in some of her statements that she did know what she was as doing was wrong, particularly regarding the killing of her oldest son. I’m not sure if she was a woman in a fully delusional state who thought she’d damaged her kids, or a woman under a lot of pressure who cracked. To me only the former is insanity as I can see what it might lead someone to kill their children.

I note that her husband accepts the insanity finding & I understand that. I also feel a great deal of sympathy for her.

The psychiatrists assessed her so we go on their evidence.

Samsonsmasher

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.

That is a big loophole, however. Is she still insane now, today? If she feels remorse now it’s seems, based on that being what a reasonable mother would feel should she be released.