Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

Options
1…2324262829

Comments

  • Options
    #752
    Ellie2008
    Registered Users Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Ellie2008


    Samsonsmasher wrote: »
    Not unless you want to look foolish?

    This isn’t China. People can & should question & discuss decisions made by government, the courts, planning etc.


  • Options
    #753
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,925 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    ek motor wrote: »
    I wonder what controls will be in place for her post-treatment release ? Will she be prevented from having any contact with children ? How can psychiatrists be sure that the treatment is successful and there is virtually no chance of a relapse in the case of a multiple child murderer ?

    Its a strange one . If she does recover from her insanity there is no way you could live with murdering your 3 children . Suffocating them to death in the most gruesome way and leaving their lifeless bodies in the house their father to find

    Or maybe she will get by fine as it wasn't her that murdered them really .

    She may even go back to her nursing role.

    Maybe a babysitter . A lot of posters here wouldn't have an issue with her minding their children when recovered


  • Options
    #754
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    santana75 wrote: »
    "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation"

    Absolutely but that's more to do with the human condition than a failure of society


  • Options
    #755
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    making sure treatment and diagnoses is avaiable is a societal problem, because all humans are susceptible to these issues, so this is an everyone's problem

    I agree with that, but that is different to saying this is society's fault which I interpreted your previous post to be saying.
    I would love better heath care in a whole range of areas.


  • Options
    #756
    ek motor
    Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭ek motor


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Its a strange one . If she does recover from her insanity there is no way you could live with murdering your 3 children . Suffocating them to death in the most gruesome way and leaving their lifeless bodies in the house their father to find

    Or maybe she will get by fine as it wasn't her that murdered them really .

    She may even go back to her nursing role.

    Maybe a babysitter . A lot of posters here wouldn't have an issue with her minding their children when recovered

    What bothers me about the insanity defence is that there is no empirical evidence of a pathology . It is based on one or several peoples opinion .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #757
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    If aware then why did you refer to it as a legal curio when it's not?

    And I don't think that posters here who agree with the verdict are patronising other posters, more a case of resisting the bloodlust there seems to be for vengeance on Deirdre Morley. It's just a horrible case, it's all terribly sad and there is nothing to be gained in seeking to further harm the woman who is detained in a forensic unit and will have to live with her actions forever.


  • Options
    #758
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    She was found not guilty by reason of insanity :confused:

    Not guilty by reason of insanity replaced guilty but insane in 2006. It is the same verdict.


  • Options
    #759
    Ellie2008
    Registered Users Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Ellie2008


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    If aware then why did you refer to it as a legal curio when it's not?

    And I don't think that posters here who agree with the verdict are patronising other posters, more a case of resisting the bloodlust there seems to be for vengeance on Deirdre Morley. It's just a horrible case, it's all terribly sad and there is nothing to be gained in seeking to further harm the woman who is detained in a forensic unit and will have to live with her actions forever.

    It’s a huge jump to say that those who don’t agree with the verdict can’t resist the bloodlust. Do you not think that statement alone is patronising?

    I have some doubts about the verdict however I’ve absolutely no wish for anyone involved to suffer harm.


  • Options
    #760
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Actually, boards is regularly full of people who don’t understand the law and instead push their own pre-judgements.

    This case is no different. Lots of posts where people defame her and pinpoint one small line in a Garda statement that suggests she might have known what she was doing, and ignoring the statements before and after which clearly debunk it.

    People wanted her found guilty of murder and aren’t happy with the facts of the case because it’s not what they wanted despite the prosecution, the defence, judge, jury and Andrew McGinley all agreeing with it.

    Don’t get me started on the oppressed men brigade using this case as a political tool to push their warped views and a chance to attack a woman.

    You also have people in this thread going on about ‘the media’ and how this case was reported differently to others. The fact this line is being thrown out shows there is a real absence of understanding of the law around defamation. I would explain it to you but you seem to think you and everyone else understands the law so I don’t have to.

    Their reaction to this verdict and the suffering of the entire family shows up the fallacy of their pretence to any sort of empathy. Thankfully they're a tiny minority, vocal but tiny.


  • Options
    #761
    Corby Trouser Press
    Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭Corby Trouser Press


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    oh ffs! its clearly obvious, even from this case alone, our health care system, particularly the psychological element of our system, is not fit for purpose! imho, it requires an immediate, immediate meaning 'today', multiples of billions of investment, to try deal with these rapidly growing societal issues, this clearly isnt going to happen, in fact it may never!

    Misdiagnosis leading to preventable cancer and other deaths are what health services can be blamed for.

    It isn't the case here that the state is refusing to spend money on some "Minority Report" type technology able to analyse and prevent future crimes.

    Nobody could have foreseen this.
    No amount of funding can prevent something like this happening again.
    It is not within the states or societies power to stop something like this happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #762
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Their reaction to this verdict and the suffering of the entire family shows up the fallacy of their pretence to any sort of empathy. Thankfully they're a tiny minority, vocal but tiny.

    Holding the opinion that men are often judged more harshly than women for the same crimes and questioning would there be the same outpouring of sympathy and empathy if the sexes were different is hardly claiming men are oppressed.

    Also the wording that people are using this to "attack a woman" would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

    Attack a woman. Are you guys actually trying to paint this killer as a victim in this case? We are a step away from people accusing any sort of negative comments towards the woman as victim blaming.


  • Options
    #763
    frosty123
    Registered Users Posts: 565 ✭✭✭frosty123


    Samsonsmasher wrote: »
    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.

    Exactly this family & friends should intervene if outward behaviour is out of character esp over a number of weeks.

    Take the person a side and have a quiet chat with them, more than likely they're not aware of their behaviour it's best for everyone in the long run.


  • Options
    #764
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    ek motor wrote: »
    A human tragedy , she should never be released from custody. Absolute minimum punishment should be a whole-life tariff. Probably the most vile case I've ever heard.

    Not guilty by reason of insanity. No sentence so unsure why you're asking for one.


  • Options
    #765
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,926 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    joe40 wrote: »
    So what in your opinion would be a fair and just outcome to this tragedy. Would it be better if the idea of insanity is discounted and this treated like a murder.
    In that case she would be found guilty and serve a long prison sentence.
    Some would prefer that but I personally think it is impossible to ignore all the medical opinion around this case.

    We either accept that insanity can be a factor in sometimes horrendous crimes or not.


    Speaking only for myself, I personally can accept and understand completely the verdict of the jury in this particular case, and the outcome of the trial. At the same time, I can completely understand why other people do not. It doesn’t mean that they are any less educated or aware of how the legal system functions or that they have any less understanding or awareness of mental health issues or the difficulties in the healthcare system or anything else.

    While I also understand that some people want to suggest that society is responsible or ‘the system’ is responsible for the outcome in this particular case where a parent killed their own children, I don’t agree with their assessment, as parents killing their own children is just not a common occurrence in Irish society.

    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    have you ever actually experienced mental health issues, and ultimately the societal shame of admitting it? look at some of the comments even on this tread, 'personal responsibility' etc. ffs!


    Not to the degree that I was compelled to kill my own child, no. They are exceptionally rare circumstances in Irish society, so rare that it would be unreasonable to expect everyone should be always conscious that a parent can kill their own children. I’m aware of the comments on this thread and I understand why they’re suggesting that people take personal responsibility for themselves and the people they care about, and especially in the case of parents relationship with their children - parents have a greater duty to their children to be responsible not just for their children’s well-being, but ultimately for their own well-being, as part of their responsibility towards their children.

    Putting their own needs above the needs of their children is purely selfish and something which any parent should be ashamed of doing, and the idea of being ashamed to seek help for their mental health pales in comparison or significance to the idea that they would ever harm their own children. That’s commonly regarded as insanity, one doesn’t even need to be an expert in law or psychology or psychiatry or paediatric care to understand that much. Clearly, society already regards it as insanity to suggest that one wouldn’t seek help when they’re having difficulties with their mental health when they are liable to either be a danger to themselves, or to other people.

    I would hope that in your efforts to educate people about people who experience difficulties with their mental health, that you would inform people that the person who is at greatest risk of harm through not taking responsibility for their mental health, is the person themselves, that people who experience difficulties with their mental health health do not generally kill people, let alone their own children. For that to happen, a person would have to be insane, and that’s why when charged with committing murder of their own children, a parent is likely to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, because they are generally thought to have been insane at the time they killed their children.

    This phenomenon is not something which requires “billions in investment” or anything else, and no amount of investment in mental health education, supports or services could have prevented someone who willingly chose not to avail of the services which were available to them before they were ever compelled to kill their own children, from doing so. Lack of investment in mental health services doesn’t cause anyone to kill people, and investment in mental health services won’t prevent anyone from killing people.


  • Options
    #766
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    frosty123 wrote: »
    Exactly this family & friends should intervene if outward behaviour is out of character esp over a number of weeks.

    Take the person a side and have a quiet chat with them, more than likely they're not aware of their behaviour it's best for everyone in the long run.

    You honestly think a quiet chat would have helped in this case?

    "Hey, you aren't acting yourself in the past few week"

    "****, now that you mention it, maybe I'm not going to do what I had planned"

    Really?


  • Options
    #767
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    ek motor wrote: »
    I wonder what controls will be in place for her post-treatment release ? Will she be prevented from having any contact with children ? How can psychiatrists be sure that the treatment is successful and there is virtually no chance of a relapse in the case of a multiple child murderer ?

    Not guilty thus not a murderer.

    You've libelled a living person and are open to legal action. Reported to boards and a screenshot taken.


  • Options
    #768
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,925 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Their reaction to this verdict and the suffering of the entire family shows up the fallacy of their pretence to any sort of empathy. Thankfully they're a tiny minority, vocal but tiny.

    Do we just refuse to believe that a person's gender affects empathy so ? It clearly does I don't know why it can't be mentioned


  • Options
    #769
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,925 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Not guilty thus not a murderer.

    You've libelled a living person and are open to legal action. Reported to boards and a screenshot taken.

    Ffs . She's a monster like Alan Hawe was . No doubt you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and if your children were in her company in the future you'd think the same


  • Options
    #770
    Jequ0n
    Registered Users Posts: 6,396 ✭✭✭Jequ0n


    One eyed Jack wrote: »

    Not to the degree that I was compelled to kill my own child, no. They are exceptionally rare circumstances in Irish society, so rare that it would be unreasonable to expect everyone should be always conscious that a parent can kill their own children. I’m aware of the comments on this thread and I understand why they’re suggesting that people take personal responsibility for themselves and the people they care about, and especially in the case of parents relationship with their children - parents have a greater duty to their children to be responsible not just for their children’s well-being, but ultimately for their own well-being, as part of their responsibility towards their children.

    Putting their own needs above the needs of their children is purely selfish and something which any parent should be ashamed of doing, and the idea of being ashamed to seek help for their mental health pales in comparison or significance to the idea that they would ever harm their own children. That’s commonly regarded as insanity, one doesn’t even need to be an expert in law or psychology or psychiatry or paediatric care to understand that much. Clearly, society already regards it as insanity to suggest that one wouldn’t seek help when they’re having difficulties with their mental health when they are liable to either be a danger to themselves, or to other people.

    She was psychotic and convinced that she was doing her children a favour by taking them with her (which didn’t really work).
    I doubt anyone commenting here can identify because they have not experienced such a state before. It is not uncommon in cases where a parent tries to kill their family.


  • Options
    #771
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Ellie2008 wrote: »
    It’s a huge jump to say that those who don’t agree with the verdict can’t resist the bloodlust. Do you not think that statement alone is patronising?

    I have some doubts about the verdict however I’ve absolutely no wish for anyone involved to suffer harm.



    Then please have a word with some fellow posters calling for her to be hanged or have her fallopian tubes removed or some other form of violence.

    In terms of doubts that's fine. It's a horrendous case but I personally am happy to defer to the father of the children, the psychiatrists for defence and prosecution, the prosecutors, the judge and the jury who were all in agreement on the verdict.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #772
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Not guilty thus not a murderer.

    You've libelled a living person and are open to legal action. Reported to boards and a screenshot taken.

    Lol. Really? That's the hill you are going to die on?

    Change it to multiple child killer if you wish and feel it makes it better


  • Options
    #773
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Holding the opinion that men are often judged more harshly than women for the same crimes and questioning would there be the same outpouring of sympathy and empathy if the sexes were different is hardly claiming men are oppressed.

    Also the wording that people are using this to "attack a woman" would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

    Attack a woman. Are you guys actually trying to paint this killer as a victim in this case? We are a step away from people accusing any sort of negative comments towards the woman as victim blaming.

    Thanks for providing some more of the whataboutery that the Moderator asked you guys (and it is all guys for sure) to desist in using.

    Kids died, the father is in the pain, the mother is in detention and all you want to do is slag off women. Priorities dude, priorities.


  • Options
    #774
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Do we just refuse to believe that a person's gender affects empathy so ? It clearly does I don't know why it can't be mentioned

    No idea what you're trying to say.


  • Options
    #775
    Sandor Clegane
    Registered Users Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Sandor Clegane


    I know this is an emotive topic and I can understand peoples upset and even anger, but people on here are unqualified to make any sweeping statements about what happened and why it happened, psychotic episodes are very real and smarter more educated people than anyone on here deemed what happened to be as a result of serious mental illness, it seems in this case there wasn't even an argument from prosecution...

    I myself struggle to grasp that she'll eventually be deemed cured and be released, its hard to accept that due to what she's done and how she can be trusted again I'll never no.


  • Options
    #776
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Ffs . She's a monster like Alan Hawe was . No doubt you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and if your children were in her company in the future you'd think the same

    Why doesn't the child's father think so?


  • Options
    #777
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,926 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Jequ0n wrote: »
    She was psychotic and convinced that she was doing her children a favour by taking them with her (which didn’t really work).
    I doubt anyone commenting here can identify because they have not experienced such a state before. It is not uncommon in cases where a parent tries to kill their family.


    I agree with all of the above.

    The point I was addressing though is Wanderer trying to claim that more investment in mental health services could have prevented the circumstances where a parent kills their own children.

    When the parent doesn’t want to avail of mental health services in the first place, any amount of investment in mental health services is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #778
    Seathrun66
    Registered Users Posts: 8,682 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Lol. Really? That's the hill you are going to die on?

    Change it to multiple child killer if you wish and feel it makes it better

    It's more accurate because despite what your bloodlust seeks Ms. Morley is not deemed by this state to be a criminal due to her state of insanity. And I for one am delighted to have a justice system like this.


  • Options
    #779
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Why doesn't the child's father think so?

    I'd hazard a guess that he is conflicted that the woman he loves committed the atrocity.


  • Options
    #780
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Thanks for providing some more of the whataboutery that the Moderator asked you guys (and it is all guys for sure) to desist in using.

    Kids died, the father is in the pain, the mother is in detention and all you want to do is slag off women. Priorities dude, priorities.

    It's absolutely not whataboutism. It's addressing the fact that anyone asking a question is labelled as someone promoting that men are oppressed.

    The fact you casually dropped in "and it's guys for sure" and don't see the blatant sexism is telling.

    I am not slagging women. I love women.

    I'm not even slagging this particular woman. I am saying her actions were detestable. It's only slagging if you disagree and you feel I am being unfair.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #781
    MoonUnit75
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    Seathrun66 wrote: »
    Not guilty thus not a murderer.

    You've libelled a living person and are open to legal action. Reported to boards and a screenshot taken.

    That would be an interesting case to take, isn’t a defamatory statement one that lowers the reputation of a person in the eyes of reasonable people? What good reputation would someone who was found to have killed three of their own children have to defend from defamation? Would be a hard case to prove I would think?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement