Why are people more sympathetic to Lindsay Clancy than Andrea Yates? (Child death mentioned)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread and the comments in it is bringing to mind the case of that poor kid in Florida who descended into psychosis while his parents tried to ‘tough love’ his symptoms into nonexistence. He became floridly psychotic and murdered two innocent bystanders while he walked down the street one night. There is no real question as to his insanity at the time of the attack, but not ten minutes earlier he was totally lucid in conversation with his father at dinner. Psychosis is unpredictable and in some ways inexplicable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/30/florida-man-insane-killed-couple-not-guilty-ate-face/10803097002/

But here’s the issue with this. If we can’t ever predict when it’s going to occur, then these people can never be free again because we never know if or when they could snap into psychosis again. We can’t rely on experts to say they are safe, because clearly the experts thought Lindsay was.

I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment.

When I was a prosecutor one of my most interesting experiences was presenting the states case in a hearing on whether to release a patient from the state mental hospital who had committed a double murder in my jurisdiction twenty years previously and had been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. She killed her father and stepmother as they slept in their bed one night - the pictures were heartbreaking - and she was captured by police in another state fleeing from the same people she thought were out to get her when she killed her dad and stepmom. She was floridly psychotic and there was no evidence she had any motive to kill her dad. After ~twenty years at the state hospital the psychiatrists had determined she was no longer a danger to herself or others and was recovered from her mental illness sufficiently to be released into the world subject to the requirement that she take a monthly injection of an antipsychotic drug. I argued that there were insufficient protections in place to ensure she got that shot every month because if she skipped it could take the state weeks or months to find her (any given day there are hundreds of people out on active warrants) and she could become floridly psychotic and homicidal in the interim.

I didn’t disagree with the judge who determined she should be released. Ultimately if we believe in treatment and rehabilitation we have to put our money where our mouth is. There are risks of danger from many things in life and we have to balance the risks with other societal benefits, including preserving and protecting the civil liberties of people who have suffered mental illness and recovered.

So far John Hinckley hasn’t put a foot wrong. Should he still be at St. Elizabeth’s? Forever?

My lay understanding is that PPP is brought about by the hormones / stress associated with birthing / caring for an infant. If so, and if Clancy is found to have PPP, I would think that she could be released back into society once she has stabilized (ie her mental illness is in remission) and doesn’t birth any more children.

In this regard, it seems like she would be a “safer” bet than say the teenage boy mentioned above, or even Hinkley, where it seems they could “go crazy” again at any point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread and the comments in it is bringing to mind the case of that poor kid in Florida who descended into psychosis while his parents tried to ‘tough love’ his symptoms into nonexistence. He became floridly psychotic and murdered two innocent bystanders while he walked down the street one night. There is no real question as to his insanity at the time of the attack, but not ten minutes earlier he was totally lucid in conversation with his father at dinner. Psychosis is unpredictable and in some ways inexplicable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/30/florida-man-insane-killed-couple-not-guilty-ate-face/10803097002/

But here’s the issue with this. If we can’t ever predict when it’s going to occur, then these people can never be free again because we never know if or when they could snap into psychosis again. We can’t rely on experts to say they are safe, because clearly the experts thought Lindsay was.

I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment.

When I was a prosecutor one of my most interesting experiences was presenting the states case in a hearing on whether to release a patient from the state mental hospital who had committed a double murder in my jurisdiction twenty years previously and had been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. She killed her father and stepmother as they slept in their bed one night - the pictures were heartbreaking - and she was captured by police in another state fleeing from the same people she thought were out to get her when she killed her dad and stepmom. She was floridly psychotic and there was no evidence she had any motive to kill her dad. After ~twenty years at the state hospital the psychiatrists had determined she was no longer a danger to herself or others and was recovered from her mental illness sufficiently to be released into the world subject to the requirement that she take a monthly injection of an antipsychotic drug. I argued that there were insufficient protections in place to ensure she got that shot every month because if she skipped it could take the state weeks or months to find her (any given day there are hundreds of people out on active warrants) and she could become floridly psychotic and homicidal in the interim.

I didn’t disagree with the judge who determined she should be released. Ultimately if we believe in treatment and rehabilitation we have to put our money where our mouth is. There are risks of danger from many things in life and we have to balance the risks with other societal benefits, including preserving and protecting the civil liberties of people who have suffered mental illness and recovered.

So far John Hinckley hasn’t put a foot wrong. Should he still be at St. Elizabeth’s? Forever?

My lay understanding is that PPP is brought about by the hormones / stress associated with birthing / caring for an infant. If so, and if Clancy is found to have PPP, I would think that she could be released back into society once she has stabilized (ie her mental illness is in remission) and doesn’t birth any more children.

In this regard, it seems like she would be a “safer” bet than say the teenage boy mentioned above, or even Hinkley, where it seems they could “go crazy” again at any point.

Are you kidding me? Anyone capable of this should never be released back into society. I can’t say based on the little information we have whether she should be in a mental hospital or jail but she should not be free to live her life. She is young and could easily get pregnant again, we don’t sterilize people as a condition for release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread and the comments in it is bringing to mind the case of that poor kid in Florida who descended into psychosis while his parents tried to ‘tough love’ his symptoms into nonexistence. He became floridly psychotic and murdered two innocent bystanders while he walked down the street one night. There is no real question as to his insanity at the time of the attack, but not ten minutes earlier he was totally lucid in conversation with his father at dinner. Psychosis is unpredictable and in some ways inexplicable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/30/florida-man-insane-killed-couple-not-guilty-ate-face/10803097002/

But here’s the issue with this. If we can’t ever predict when it’s going to occur, then these people can never be free again because we never know if or when they could snap into psychosis again. We can’t rely on experts to say they are safe, because clearly the experts thought Lindsay was.

I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment.

When I was a prosecutor one of my most interesting experiences was presenting the states case in a hearing on whether to release a patient from the state mental hospital who had committed a double murder in my jurisdiction twenty years previously and had been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. She killed her father and stepmother as they slept in their bed one night - the pictures were heartbreaking - and she was captured by police in another state fleeing from the same people she thought were out to get her when she killed her dad and stepmom. She was floridly psychotic and there was no evidence she had any motive to kill her dad. After ~twenty years at the state hospital the psychiatrists had determined she was no longer a danger to herself or others and was recovered from her mental illness sufficiently to be released into the world subject to the requirement that she take a monthly injection of an antipsychotic drug. I argued that there were insufficient protections in place to ensure she got that shot every month because if she skipped it could take the state weeks or months to find her (any given day there are hundreds of people out on active warrants) and she could become floridly psychotic and homicidal in the interim.

I didn’t disagree with the judge who determined she should be released. Ultimately if we believe in treatment and rehabilitation we have to put our money where our mouth is. There are risks of danger from many things in life and we have to balance the risks with other societal benefits, including preserving and protecting the civil liberties of people who have suffered mental illness and recovered.

So far John Hinckley hasn’t put a foot wrong. Should he still be at St. Elizabeth’s? Forever?

My lay understanding is that PPP is brought about by the hormones / stress associated with birthing / caring for an infant. If so, and if Clancy is found to have PPP, I would think that she could be released back into society once she has stabilized (ie her mental illness is in remission) and doesn’t birth any more children.

In this regard, it seems like she would be a “safer” bet than say the teenage boy mentioned above, or even Hinkley, where it seems they could “go crazy” again at any point.

But the doctors already declared her safe enough to be home alone with her children (unless she was in violation of terms, which has not been reported) so if they declare her safe again at some point in the future, how do we know its true? How do they know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread and the comments in it is bringing to mind the case of that poor kid in Florida who descended into psychosis while his parents tried to ‘tough love’ his symptoms into nonexistence. He became floridly psychotic and murdered two innocent bystanders while he walked down the street one night. There is no real question as to his insanity at the time of the attack, but not ten minutes earlier he was totally lucid in conversation with his father at dinner. Psychosis is unpredictable and in some ways inexplicable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/30/florida-man-insane-killed-couple-not-guilty-ate-face/10803097002/

But here’s the issue with this. If we can’t ever predict when it’s going to occur, then these people can never be free again because we never know if or when they could snap into psychosis again. We can’t rely on experts to say they are safe, because clearly the experts thought Lindsay was.

I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment.

When I was a prosecutor one of my most interesting experiences was presenting the states case in a hearing on whether to release a patient from the state mental hospital who had committed a double murder in my jurisdiction twenty years previously and had been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. She killed her father and stepmother as they slept in their bed one night - the pictures were heartbreaking - and she was captured by police in another state fleeing from the same people she thought were out to get her when she killed her dad and stepmom. She was floridly psychotic and there was no evidence she had any motive to kill her dad. After ~twenty years at the state hospital the psychiatrists had determined she was no longer a danger to herself or others and was recovered from her mental illness sufficiently to be released into the world subject to the requirement that she take a monthly injection of an antipsychotic drug. I argued that there were insufficient protections in place to ensure she got that shot every month because if she skipped it could take the state weeks or months to find her (any given day there are hundreds of people out on active warrants) and she could become floridly psychotic and homicidal in the interim.

I didn’t disagree with the judge who determined she should be released. Ultimately if we believe in treatment and rehabilitation we have to put our money where our mouth is. There are risks of danger from many things in life and we have to balance the risks with other societal benefits, including preserving and protecting the civil liberties of people who have suffered mental illness and recovered.

So far John Hinckley hasn’t put a foot wrong. Should he still be at St. Elizabeth’s? Forever?

My lay understanding is that PPP is brought about by the hormones / stress associated with birthing / caring for an infant. If so, and if Clancy is found to have PPP, I would think that she could be released back into society once she has stabilized (ie her mental illness is in remission) and doesn’t birth any more children.

In this regard, it seems like she would be a “safer” bet than say the teenage boy mentioned above, or even Hinkley, where it seems they could “go crazy” again at any point.

No, no, no….this right here is what’s wrong with how we view and treat mental illness. She has clearly proven that she is not to be a productive member of society from this point on. Be it mental illness or whatever else, she is no longer a trusted member of society. She is a danger to all of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread and the comments in it is bringing to mind the case of that poor kid in Florida who descended into psychosis while his parents tried to ‘tough love’ his symptoms into nonexistence. He became floridly psychotic and murdered two innocent bystanders while he walked down the street one night. There is no real question as to his insanity at the time of the attack, but not ten minutes earlier he was totally lucid in conversation with his father at dinner. Psychosis is unpredictable and in some ways inexplicable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/30/florida-man-insane-killed-couple-not-guilty-ate-face/10803097002/

But here’s the issue with this. If we can’t ever predict when it’s going to occur, then these people can never be free again because we never know if or when they could snap into psychosis again. We can’t rely on experts to say they are safe, because clearly the experts thought Lindsay was.

I don’t entirely disagree with your assessment.

When I was a prosecutor one of my most interesting experiences was presenting the states case in a hearing on whether to release a patient from the state mental hospital who had committed a double murder in my jurisdiction twenty years previously and had been adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity. She killed her father and stepmother as they slept in their bed one night - the pictures were heartbreaking - and she was captured by police in another state fleeing from the same people she thought were out to get her when she killed her dad and stepmom. She was floridly psychotic and there was no evidence she had any motive to kill her dad. After ~twenty years at the state hospital the psychiatrists had determined she was no longer a danger to herself or others and was recovered from her mental illness sufficiently to be released into the world subject to the requirement that she take a monthly injection of an antipsychotic drug. I argued that there were insufficient protections in place to ensure she got that shot every month because if she skipped it could take the state weeks or months to find her (any given day there are hundreds of people out on active warrants) and she could become floridly psychotic and homicidal in the interim.

I didn’t disagree with the judge who determined she should be released. Ultimately if we believe in treatment and rehabilitation we have to put our money where our mouth is. There are risks of danger from many things in life and we have to balance the risks with other societal benefits, including preserving and protecting the civil liberties of people who have suffered mental illness and recovered.

So far John Hinckley hasn’t put a foot wrong. Should he still be at St. Elizabeth’s? Forever?

My lay understanding is that PPP is brought about by the hormones / stress associated with birthing / caring for an infant. If so, and if Clancy is found to have PPP, I would think that she could be released back into society once she has stabilized (ie her mental illness is in remission) and doesn’t birth any more children.

In this regard, it seems like she would be a “safer” bet than say the teenage boy mentioned above, or even Hinkley, where it seems they could “go crazy” again at any point.

But the doctors already declared her safe enough to be home alone with her children (unless she was in violation of terms, which has not been reported) so if they declare her safe again at some point in the future, how do we know its true? How do they know?

These ‘doctors’ suck….I am thinking they should be held partially accountable for this. She could have and should have probably been 302’d or involuntarily committed. Someone dropped the ball here and it wasn’t the husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that whilst I almost never wish ill on others, there are some posters commenting in this thread who are so absent compassion that I almost wish they would wake up in a few years to a teenager with a diagnosis of schizophrenia so they could spend the next several decades learning what psychotic disorder can do to the brain of a person they love. Or would they still love them?

These are the same people that think it is super easy to call up a psychiatrist and walk your child or spouse in for care the next day. It doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that whilst I almost never wish ill on others, there are some posters commenting in this thread who are so absent compassion that I almost wish they would wake up in a few years to a teenager with a diagnosis of schizophrenia so they could spend the next several decades learning what psychotic disorder can do to the brain of a person they love. Or would they still love them?

These are the same people that think it is super easy to call up a psychiatrist and walk your child or spouse in for care the next day. It doesn't work like that.

Of course not, but in the meantime, don't hand them an 8 month old, leave, and hope for the best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that whilst I almost never wish ill on others, there are some posters commenting in this thread who are so absent compassion that I almost wish they would wake up in a few years to a teenager with a diagnosis of schizophrenia so they could spend the next several decades learning what psychotic disorder can do to the brain of a person they love. Or would they still love them?

These are the same people that think it is super easy to call up a psychiatrist and walk your child or spouse in for care the next day. It doesn't work like that.

We need mental institutions brought back, pills aren’t a cure for many people. We have to question why is mental illness so pervasive now? Many people being handed SSRIs are not in fact mentally ill, while others are clearly ill and no one intervenes. We desperately need more accurate screening and diagnosis. We leave it up to primary care providers and obgyns to identify mental illness. This should not be happening.

[Anonymous]

I don’t even understand this outpatient PPD treatment she was receiving. I have so many questions, did she drive herself to and from this program daily? Was she safe to even be driving a car? How many hours per day was the treatment? who watched the children while she was at treatment every day? An outpatient PPD program seems counterproductive, like were any professionals with her when she interacted with her children? Presumably her kids didn’t attend the program with her.

[Anonymous]

Look she is a murderer. This is not complicated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t even understand this outpatient PPD treatment she was receiving. I have so many questions, did she drive herself to and from this program daily? Was she safe to even be driving a car? How many hours per day was the treatment? who watched the children while she was at treatment every day? An outpatient PPD program seems counterproductive, like were any professionals with her when she interacted with her children? Presumably her kids didn’t attend the program with her.

+1 I am wondering about all of this too. It sounds like even though she was getting help it was nowhere near enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look she is a murderer. This is not complicated

This. 25 pages and this is still the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look she is a murderer. This is not complicated

This. 25 pages and this is still the answer.

Yes, we can blame PPD/PPP all we want but in the end, she viciously murdered her three children. It’s the same as the the mentally unstable school shooter, or a mentally ill father who kills his family, who we demonize. Why is PPD/PPP held to a higher standard and empathized with any more than schizophrenia or any other mental illness, or having a long history of being bullied and ostracized?

[Anonymous]

The diagnosis of some mental illness is subjective, PPD/PPP is diagnosed via a questionnaire? Come on, there is no actual test to identify depression, an MRI or CT scan can’t detect a lack of serotonin or dopamine or any neurotransmitter. But physicians hand SSRIs out to anyone who ‘feels depressed/anxious’. I am curious what meds she was prescribed, because they could have caused more harm than good for her. How do we know Chris Watts wasn’t temporarily psychotic? We should view all murderers as potentially or temporarily mentally ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look she is a murderer. This is not complicated

This. 25 pages and this is still the answer.

No, that’s not an answer to the question the OP asked.