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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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/[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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? [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics