Not Guilty by reason of Insanity READ OP FIRST

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

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.

I absolutely get where you are coming from.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

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

Well sure aren't we all prejudiced so?

Also seems a bit superfluous of you to use both emotional and prejudiced if that was your meaning.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

What are my 'entrenched and deep-seated views' you referred to?

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

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

While insane.

When no longer unwell she will be released.

Seathrun66

JackTC wrote: »

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

Indicative of your mindset rather than the public at large.

But should she seek a change of identity she will receive one.

Meirleach

Thorny issue.

Having read some of the details of the case, and especially the slaying of the eldest lad. I can see why the jury took some time for deliberation.

So much of it seemed more planned than I'd expect for someone who'd taken leave of their senses.

This particular bit at the end of the RTE article actually made me feel a bit ill.

Ms Morley said she wanted to move forward to escorted community release after the trial was over.

It hasn't even been two years since she killed them. I'm really not sure if justice was done in this case.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

While insane.

When no longer unwell she will be released.

Your choice of language is funny to me.

Unwell is a rather tame way of describing murderously insane.

The way you choose to frame it sounds like she has a cold.

Seathrun66

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Indicative of your mindset rather than the public at large.

But should she seek a change of identity she will receive one.

Highly unfair charge to level at someone.

Perhaps he should screenshot it if he needs to bring a defamation case.

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.

You agree with every jury verdict, do you?

Mexican Style

Mexican Style wrote: »

Think of any horrific crime that was committed. If you were born into their body and circumstances you would have also committed the crime. It's bad luck.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

It sounds almost as if you are arguing it was fate.

Honest question, I may be reading this completely wrong.

One eyed Jack

Jequ0n wrote: »

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.

It’s true to every extent.

Your argument for change would only hold up if it was the case that the individual in question was denied access to mental health services because of a resourcing issue. That’s not what happened here. The individual in question made a conscious decision not to avail of mental health services when they were fully competent and capable of availing of mental health services. They chose not to, and because they chose not to avail of mental health services and supports which were available to them, their mental health deteriorated to the point where they were compelled to kill their own children.

Arguing for changes in mental health services which are already available to people who are experiencing difficulties with their mental health would make no difference to people who choose not to avail of them. This isn’t a disaster that was caused by the lack of available mental health supports and services. It was caused by a person who made the conscious choice at the time to hide the fact that they were experiencing difficulties with their mental health.

Her husband, friends and anyone else trying to apportion responsibility for the deaths of three children to the health system are aiming their frustration at the wrong target, precisely because they refuse to accept that the only person responsible for killing her children is the individual in question. It’s why she was charged with committing murder, and found not guilty by reason of insanity. Nobody else and no other organisation was on trial for the murder of the three children who were the victims of her decision to forego the mental health services and support which were available to her if she had wanted them. She chose to hide it, and her children paid with their lives for her being too embarrassed to address her mental health at the time when she was aware it was causing her distress.

jmayo

bubblypop wrote: »

Tbf, you don't know if he is or not.
He does understand the law, unlike most posters on here.

Ah a legal professional.
It all adds up now.

poisonated wrote: »

Very sad case. What is the central mental hospital like? Is it nice?

If you work there you can't leave your tools out of your sight.
By the way I know a band that did a gig there

TP_CM wrote: »

Not nice for a person who is probably fairly sane right now. That's not a remark against the sentence. I mean she was relatively sane for 40 years before having that momentary breakdown. I don't think she's in the same league as some of the people in there. She might manage to make friends with some of the nurses. Nicer than prison. Prison really is a cesspit.

I hate this mullarkey where someone that did what they did could now be sane.
Fair enough she was insane around the time, but how the flying fook could a mother who carried out such a deed now be considered sane or stable.

Almost every mother I know are willing to die for the children they have reared and especially those that they have carried for 9 months growing in their bodies.
If they ever did anything to end their lives they would be beside themselves and never be right again.

On the other hand this one is supposedly on about how she feels she could go back to work and she is like her old self.

That is one disturbed person.

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Why shouldn't she be released if she recovers? People who have killed while insane are released routinely from secure hospitals. Defendents who have recovered from psychotic episodes who are found to have been insane at the time of their crimes and are now sane and no longer mentally ill are free to go.

Yes and some of those killers that are deemed fit for release kill again.

Ah but shure some shrink reckons they are fine.
That's all that counts. :rolleyes:

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.

Is that sanity dependent on a cocktail of drugs ?

If you have killed multiple people, most especially children, in a mental breakdown then you should not ever be out again in society.

Why are some now so driven by the concern of personal rights of individuals over the greater good of society ?

And as for the eejits who think that what some of us say is defaming her.
Holy cr** what can you say about a triple child killer that calls into question their character anymore.:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see this going the usual route

"The court has ruled and technically its correct and experts have said it so anyone who has an issue with it is either ignorant or a monster"

That wont help the next three kids and bear in mind before that high horse runs off with you on it that the person commenting may have very relevant experience in being raised by parents where the latter's diagnosis and treatment came before the child's wellbeing.

I posted this on page 3 of this thread

Seems i can predict human behaviour better than the psychatrists whom we are meant not to dare question.

[Deleted User]

[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.

The prosecution and the defence agreed on insanity. I can confidently say that they have far more knowledge and expertise on the case than you ever will. It's horrifying that it happened but you're ignoring a pretty complex issue that led to it happening.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The prosecution and the defence agreed on insanity. I can confidently say that they have far more knowledge and expertise on the case than you ever will. It's horrifying that it happened but you're ignoring a pretty complex issue that led to it happening.

Knowledge and expertise dont exist in a non-biased vacuum, not in the courtroom not in the media not in the DPP office- nowhere.

Professional knowledge and expertise had three children in the care of the woman who killed them

I think that should be more than enough reason to admit legitimate questions over any aspect of what the mental health lobby advises as policy or practice

BloodBath

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I can’t link the article but I’m almost certain I have this right. She said she was sitting chatting to her eldest son about the movie he was watching & she thought to herself I can’t do this, this is awful but then thought I have to ive killed his siblings what will he think. So according to that testimony she didn’t kill him because she thought she’d damaged him, she killed him because of what he would think of her when he found out she’d killed his siblings. I can’t understand why his killing wasn’t distinguished based on that statement & the lapse in time. The sandwich detail made be shudder. Imagine watching a kid buy his last meal. Horrendous.

The thought process of a pschopath. She may well have had other mental health issues but I don't think a person could go that far or think like that unless they were also a psycho. That woman is dangerous and should never be released.

jmayo

This thread highlights something and it is very much including the same posters who often have a habit of giving the benefit of the doubt to those who inflict hurt on others or engage in anti social and criminal behaviour.

There is often an explanation that the bad behaviour be it extreme anti social, violence or extremes such as this case or terrorism incidents is down to some mental deficiency or illness of the perpetrator.

To me that is excusing the behaviour to a degree.
It is often absolving people of responsibility for their actions, actions that often result in a terminal outcome for others.

When people speak about releasing these perpetrators in the future, after they have served their sentence or had a period of treatment and some psychiatrist or therapist has subjectively found them supposedly now adjusted, they speak about them having another chance.

Well the victims often don't get another chance.

This lady's three children don't get another chance at life.
This lady's husband doesn't get another chance to watch his three children grow up.

Why does she get another chance?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The prosecution and the defence agreed on insanity. I can confidently say that they have far more knowledge and expertise on the case than you ever will. It's horrifying that it happened but you're ignoring a pretty complex issue that led to it happening.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Not sure what you think I'm ignoring.

Gatling

Remember we seen a big push for care in the community when we don't have the ability to provide 24/7 365 care to mentally ill people in the community ,
Never mind dangerous individuals ,we've thousands of kids who are causing any number of problems to their families who cannot get supports while leaving highly stressed parents dealing with violent children while trying to protect themselves and their other children ,and that's before we get to adults who are off meds who already have a diagnosis of a mental disorder ,
And it's happening in schools to a degree and guess what little or no supports available ,
That's why I believe this Person should spend the rest of her life incarcerated in a hospital or prison ,

Jequ0n

BloodBath wrote: »

The thought process of a pschopath. She may well have had other mental health issues but I don't think a person could go that far or think like that unless they were also a psycho. That woman is dangerous and should never be released.

And you are basing your assessment of psychopathic thought patterns on what exactly? Please share

Samsonsmasher

jmayo wrote: »

This thread highlights something and it is very much including the same posters who often have a habit of giving the benefit of the doubt to those who inflict hurt on others or engage in anti social and criminal behaviour.

There is often an explanation that the bad behaviour be it extreme anti social, violence or extremes such as this case or terrorism incidents is down to some mental deficiency or illness of the perpetrator.

To me that is excusing the behaviour to a degree.
It is often absolving people of responsibility for their actions, actions that often result in a terminal outcome for others.

When people speak about releasing these perpetrators in the future, after they have served their sentence or had a period of treatment and some psychiatrist or therapist has subjectively found them supposedly now adjusted, they speak about them having another chance.

Well the victims often don't get another chance.

This lady's three children don't get another chance at life.
This lady's husband doesn't get another chance to watch his three children grow up.

Why does she get another chance?

She was insane when she committed the killings

Insane people are not responsible for killings committed when they were insane

When she recovers from her insanity she's a free woman

It's very simple to understand.

suicide_circus

Could there be an element of collective professional arse covering in the expert recommendations?

Seathrun66

Mexican Style wrote: »

You can make the case for almost any violent crime that the assailant was insane.

Would a sane person rape or murder?

There's always a reason that leads to someone committing the crime.

Yes, and many do. They will generally have some sort of disorder though in terms of murder or manslaughter events are always different. Very few murders are committed by people judged to be insane.

Seathrun66

Deleted User wrote: »

Highly unfair charge to level at someone.

Perhaps he should screenshot it if he needs to bring a defamation case.

Explain the nature of the defamation.

JP Liz V1

Meirleach wrote: »

Thorny issue.
Having read some of the details of the case, and especially the slaying of the eldest lad. I can see why the jury took some time for deliberation.
So much of it seemed more planned than I'd expect for someone who'd taken leave of their senses.
This particular bit at the end of the RTE article actually made me feel a bit ill.
It hasn't even been two years since she killed them. I'm really not sure if justice was done in this case.

The judge told the jury the verdict, the murders sorry I cannot use killings should have been 3 separate cases as the eldest child's case is even more horrific with the fore thought planning

JP Liz V1

Meirleach wrote: »

Thorny issue.
Having read some of the details of the case, and especially the slaying of the eldest lad. I can see why the jury took some time for deliberation.
So much of it seemed more planned than I'd expect for someone who'd taken leave of their senses.
This particular bit at the end of the RTE article actually made me feel a bit ill.
It hasn't even been two years since she killed them. I'm really not sure if justice was done in this case.

The judge told the jury the verdict, the murders sorry I cannot use killings should have been 3 separate cases as the eldest child's case is even more horrific with the fore thought planning

BloodBath

Well then the law needs to be changed. She allowed herself to get into that mental state. It must have been a long process for it to get that bad. She didn't read any of the warning signs herself? When she started having dark thoughts she didn't look for help to rectify it?

Why is there no personal responsibility for anything anymore? People looking to blame the HSE. I can forgive her husband for it but it's not reality.

You can forgive people for many things because of mental health issues. You cross the line at killing children.

The idea that some new meds she's on has magically fixed her is laughable. If she had serious mental health issues prior to killing her 3 young kids wtf is she going to be like now with that weighing on her? If she has a conscious that is.

Samsonsmasher

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

She was insane when she committed the killings

Insane people are not responsible for killings committed when they were insane

When she recovers from her insanity she's a free woman

It's very simple to understand.

Honest question; would you be ok for her to live beside you when she is released?

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You agree with every jury verdict, do you?

I feel like you’re leading to a ‘gotcha’ moment so why don’t you just get on with it?

suicide_circus

Not murdered, premeditatively killed.