Lady murdered her own children because she was fucking nuts and no other reason. Nobody disputes this. If she doesn’t qualify for the ‘insanity’ defense, who does?
Pregnancy is a scary thing. Everyone knows it can kill it’s parent, but not everyone appreciates that it regularly changes the mom’s body permanently. That is to say it damages mom’s body permanently. Turns out it can wreck the brain just as badly as the pelvic floor.
It’s so shocking and disturbing to think about a mother murdering her own kids. So I feel like I have to point out that family annihilation is the most common form of mass murder in the US and it happens about every 5 days. Clancy’s actions do not fit the pattern of that crime because the children were wanted, the marriage was stable, there was no abuse, and it’s unusual for a woman to do this.
Apparently you’re not aware of the laws in MA concerning this specific example. MA laws significantly differ from most states in that if there is a possibility of mental issues the burden is placed on the state to prove the person is competent. In short the exact thing you think the legal system is tilted towards is what is NOT happening to her because of the potential for mental issues.
You could probably say that about any mass murderer. However, being insane does not necessarily mean you don’t know the difference between right and wrong. That is basically what she is on trial for.
I don’t know enough about the history of her medical treatment et al, but she wasn’t being tried on being insane or not.
Lady murdered her own children because she was fucking nuts and no other reason. Nobody disputes this. If she doesn’t qualify for the ‘insanity’ defense, who does?
Pregnancy is a scary thing. Everyone knows it can kill it’s parent, but not everyone appreciates that it regularly changes the mom’s body permanently. That is to say it damages mom’s body permanently. Turns out it can wreck the brain just as badly as the pelvic floor.
It’s so shocking and disturbing to think about a mother murdering her own kids. So I feel like I have to point out that family annihilation is the most common form of mass murder in the US and it happens about every 5 days. Clancy’s actions do not fit the pattern of that crime because the children were wanted, the marriage was stable, there was no abuse, and it’s unusual for a woman to do this.
The question isn’t really if she was crazy it’s more about how much we want to punish her
the legal system is heavily tilted in favor of ‘‘let’s never let anyone go free’’ than anything else.
Apparently you’re not aware of the laws in MA concerning this specific example. MA laws significantly differ from most states in that if there is a possibility of mental issues the burden is placed on the state to prove the person is competent. In short the exact thing you think the legal system is tilted towards is what is NOT happening to her because of the potential for mental issues.
You could probably say that about any mass murderer. However, being insane does not necessarily mean you don’t know the difference between right and wrong. That is basically what she is on trial for.
I don’t know enough about the history of her medical treatment et al, but she wasn’t being tried on being insane or not.