Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
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:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If she knew her kids were dead, why wasn’t her next question, “what happened to them”? Why was the next question “do I need a lawyer?” She knew exactly what she did and she was well aware of what she was doing, when she was doing it. [/quote] Psychosis also doesn’t necessarily impair memory. The denial in this thread about this symptom is really astounding.[/quote] Sounds to me like psychosis is pretty damn impossible to prove.[/quote] It can also be very hard to disprove. And that is much more true when someone alleging it has recently been on three different antipsychotic medications, among many others.[/quote] Well in this case the burden is on the defense to prove psychosis. The prosecution merely has to prove that she killed the kids. That doesn't seem too hard at this point. It will be on the defense to prove she was suffering from psychosis. Not on the state to prove that she wasn't. [/quote] This is America. The burden is on the prosecution, where it always belongs. In this case, they have to show that she killed the kids in an act that was a murder (or however they decide to charge it), vs in an act that was a manslaughter or an act that was negligence or an act that was an accident or an act that occurred in a time during which she lacked the capacity to understand the nature of her actions. And the nature of her crime itself, because it correctly shocks the conscience, can also be interpreted as strongly suggesting that she was off her rocker. [/quote] This isn't how it works, at all. We don't claim all criminals who commit shocking crimes must have been insane because their crime was so shocking. How moronic. [/quote] We actually do this quite regularly. [/quote] We might call them crazy in conversation, but we don't excuse their crimes or let them out of jail. Brian Kohberger murdered 4 college students with a military knife - is he criminally insane because his crime was so shocking?[/quote] Nobody is saying that she should get out of jail. The argument of people claiming that she is evil and premeditated this is that she is guilty of first degree murder, specifically. The point the rest of us have been arguing is: it seems very possible that she committed these acts without any of that other stuff being true. [/quote] What? PLENTY of people on this thread have said she belongs in a cushy, upscale rehab funded by GFM donations and/or at her parents’ house.[/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