Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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.

Is she not criminally insane?

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

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

And yet sixteen months of grief and contemplation have rendered him less angry than you.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

Is she not criminally insane?

No, or she would have been sentenced as such with a restriction order.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I think you'll have little luck in finding many women who believe that men are oppressed. Hence it's an easy conclusion to draw that the angry brigade here saying men are treated worse in criminal proceedings are all guys. Convince me otherwise.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And yet sixteen months of grief and contemplation have rendered him less angry than you.

Anger? I'm angry that three children wont have opportunity to grow up and were killed horrifically. We all should be in my opinion.

Am I more angry than the father? Not at all. I just don't think we all need to take this poor man's emotional state and opinion as a benchmark as he is too close to the case to be able to be objective.

I think you believe having an opinion and posting online about it is a sign of anger. It's not. It's a discussion. If you can't engage in a discussion about an emotive topic without getting angry or feel that any opinion which goes against yours is hostile and angry, that's more on you.

Jequ0n

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

True to some extent which is why I was curious how this case was going to pan out.
However, her husband and friends had been concerned and could not get this actioned/ addressed despite this. The underfunded mental health system played a factor here too. While nothing can reverse what happened to this family it can hopefully used as leverage to get some changes actioned and avoid it happening again.

We can call this woman a vindictive murderer all we like but it won’t change a thing. The only thing we can actively do is try to improve the health system and hopefully get some level of improvement. Unfortunately, in many cases, disaster has to strike before anything gets done.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I think you'll have little luck in finding many women who believe that men are oppressed. Hence it's an easy conclusion to draw that the angry brigade here saying men are treated worse in criminal proceedings are all guys. Convince me otherwise.

I never said men are "oppressed". I've said that men and women are treated differently in many ways, empathy towards perpetrators of violent acts included. That doesn't equate to oppression.

I'm not here to convince you to change your entrenched and deep seeded views.

You do you.

Would you consider yourself a feminist by any chance?

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

Anger? I'm angry that three children wont have opportunity to grow up and were killed horrifically. We all should be in my opinion.

Am I more angry than the father? Not at all. I just don't think we all need to take this poor man's emotional state and opinion as a benchmark as he is too close to the case to be able to be objective.

I think you believe having an opinion and posting online about it is a sign of anger. It's not. It's a discussion. If you can't engage in a discussion about an emotive topic without getting angry or feel that any opinion which goes against yours is hostile and angry, that's more on you.

So why are you more triggered than the children's father who accepts the verdict as the only possibility? And the professionals on all sides who worked on this for sixteen months? And the jury who came to the only possible verdict?

What use is your anger and bile following the just conclusion of the case?

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said men are "oppressed". I've said that men and women are treated differently in many ways, empathy towards perpetrators of violent acts included. That doesn't equate to oppression.

I'm not here to convince you to change your entrenched and deep seeded views.

You do you.

Would you consider yourself a feminist by any chance?

What are those views and what are some examples going by my posts?

And it's deep-seated views.

Faugheen

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So we are not allowed have different views opinions to the court verdict

You can have whatever views on the verdict you want, but you thinking it should be anything other than what was given by the jury has zero basis other than your own feeling.

You are ignoring the evidence if you think this verdict should be anything other than not guilty by reason of insanity. Everyone agrees with the verdict apart from people on boards who seemingly know better.

Sweet.Science

Seathrun66 wrote: »

And yet sixteen months of grief and contemplation have rendered him less angry than you.

Do you know him personally ? You know his thoughts for the last 16 months ? Or just basing it off a statement ?

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

So why are you more triggered than the children's father who accepts the verdict as the only possibility? And the professionals on all sides who worked on this for sixteen months? And the jury who came to the only possible verdict?

What use is your anger and bile following the just conclusion of the case?

I'm not triggered by the father's acceptance. I find it understandable. I am uneasy with verdict but accept it.

I just hope that this woman is not released into the public.

iamwhoiam

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Do you know him personally ? You know his thoughts for the last 16 months ? Or just basing it off a statement ?

Did you watch Andrew on Prime Time last night ? He was so amazing and understanding of his wife . He was closest to Deirdre and knew her so well so I will follow his lead and feel empathy and not judge .

Seathrun66

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Do you know him personally ? You know his thoughts for the last 16 months ? Or just basing it off a statement ?

His calm and moderation is at odds with some here. Thankfully.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

You can have whatever views on the verdict you want, but you thinking it should be anything other than what was given by the jury has zero basis other than your own feeling.

You are ignoring the evidence if you think this verdict should be anything other than not guilty by reason of insanity. Everyone agrees with the verdict apart from people on boards who seemingly know better.

Everyone agrees with the verdict apart from people on boards. Oooh I don't often do this but..... citation needed.

Sweet.Science

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Did you watch Andrew on Prime Time last night ? He was so amazing and understanding of his wife . He was closest to Deirdre and knew her so well so I will follow his lead and feel empathy and not judge .

Ok cool . You think when she's recovered she should become a pediatric nurse again ?

iamwhoiam

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Ok cool . You think when she's recovered she should become a pediatric nurse again ?

You know as well as I do that that will never happen dont you ?
Feeling empathy does not mean I am blind to what is the right thing to do

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not triggered by the father's acceptance. I find it understandable. I am uneasy with verdict but accept it.

I just hope that this woman is not released into the public.

Why not, if after lengthy treatment and therapy she is deemed to be well enough by the relevant experienced professionals to be released after several trial periods in the community? Which will then be followed up by social services and community psychiatrists.

Sweet.Science

iamwhoiam wrote: »

You know as well as I do that that will never happen dont you ?

Ok . What about being a childminder ? That can happen . You allow her mind kids cash in hand . She was a nurse so more than able

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

What are those views and what are some examples going by my posts?

And it's deep-seated views.

It sure is deep seated. My apologies. I will strive to do better.

If you require me to convince you to change your mind, I would assume your views are deep SEATED.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Why not, if after lengthy treatment and therapy she is deemed to be well enough by the relevant experienced professionals to be released after several trial periods in the community? Which will then be followed up by social services and community psychiatrists.

Because of the little fact that she killed her three children.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone agrees with the verdict apart from people on boards. Oooh I don't often do this but..... citation needed.

Exaggeration to highlight a point.

Everyone personally involved in this case agrees with the verdict. Why do some people on boards think they know better?

Also, despite having people here who work in mental health services and legal professions, you and others still continue to argue a toss.

It's based on pure emotion and prejudice. Nothing more, nothing less.

joe40

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Did you watch Andrew on Prime Time last night ? He was so amazing and understanding of his wife . He was closest to Deirdre and knew her so well so I will follow his lead and feel empathy and not judge .

Absolutely. I think the issue is that people want punishment to be part of a justice system, so do I, nothing wrong with that.
The trouble is if we accept that some people commit crimes as a result of insanity then the punishment aspect doesn't come into it.
It is about treating the person as a patient in a mental health hospital.

We either accept that or not. There isn't any halfway house.

JackTC

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Why not, if after lengthy treatment and therapy she is deemed to be well enough by the relevant experienced professionals to be released after several trial periods in the community? Which will then be followed up by social services and community psychiatrists.

Because she will probably be attacked.

I don't understand how no one has brought this up yet. There is no way it's safe for her to released to the public. She'll be lacerated

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Exaggeration to highlight a point.

Everyone personally involved in this case agrees with the verdict. Why do some people on boards think they know better?

Also, despite having people here who work in mental health services and legal professions, you and others still continue to argue a toss.

It's based on pure emotion and prejudice. Nothing more, nothing less.

People personally involved with cases are usually unreliable due to emotional attachment and involvement.

And you have no idea about my background in the field of mental health. Their opinion is noted and respected, but it doesn't necessarily change my mind.

The legality is cut and dry. I can't argue that. I wouldn't even want to. It doesn't prevent me from airing my opinion. Do you think it should?

I admit that as a father, there is a certain amount of emotion which is directing my opinion. You'd need to be a robot for it not to. I dispute the accusation of prejudice though.

jackboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Because of the little fact that she killed her three children.

There is a point though that even most of those found guilty of murder are eventually released back into society. Perfectly legal for these murderers to walk around interacting with people who have no idea who they are dealing with.

That is just the way western society works.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

People personally involved with cases are usually unreliable due to emotional attachment and involvement.

And you have no idea about my background in the field of mental health. Their opinion is noted and respected, but it doesn't necessarily change my mind.

The legality is cut and dry. I can't argue that. I wouldn't even want to. It doesn't prevent me from airing my opinion. Do you think it should?

I admit that as a father, there is a certain amount of emotion which is directing my opinion. You'd need to be a robot for it not to. I dispute the accusation of prejudice though.

If there is emotion attached then there is prejudice...

santana75

Antares35 wrote: »

How is society the real culprit? Do you have actual concrete facts to substantiate that claim or is it just a sweeping statement? What could society have done differently? How is the system "insane" and what needs to change?

You mean apart from the fact that a woman has killed her 3 children. And then in another case not so widely reported which took place a few weeks later, where another woman killed her child before killing herself. Look into these things for yourself, it happens all over the world. People are being medicated when their problems having nothing to do with pharmacology. Open your eyes and look around you, really look and see whats happening, dont just argue and look for "concrete facts" or peer reviewed studies. Dont be one of those fools who says unless theres a study about it then it doesnt exist.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because of the little fact that she killed her three children.

Really odd that someone is saying otherwise ,

The facts are she murdered her three children ,not the father or some stranger ,only she was involved ,

Ellie2008

Seathrun66 wrote: »

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.

I very much disagree with the type of horrible posts you mentioned.

There are however multiple posters who have lumped those who have doubts about the decision into the same bucket as those posting those horrible posts, or state that people who question the decision are uneducated, don’t understand the legal system.

I accept that you accept the decision. I have doubts about it. Multiple posters have stated or implied that I & others essentially have to accept the decision. Of course I do but that doesn’t include not questioning it.