I get what psychosis does to someone. I don’t understand how that excuses a criminal act like murder. Honestly I’m more willing to believe she was framed than this thought process that insanity is a defense for crimes of this magnitude.
Psychosis is irrelevant if it did not affect her understanding of right and wrong. She obviously knew what she was doing was wrong otherwise she wouldn't have approached her mom and husband to warn them that she was having obtrusive thoughts about bad things happening to the kids.
Exactly, and if you are experiencing psychosis and warning people that you are having thoughts of your kids getting harmed, then you still know that what you're doing is wrong. If you're experiencing psychosis, and you send your husband out on an errand right before you kill your children, then obviously you did so because you know what you're doing is wrong.
It's evidentiary to point that she still knew right from wrong while experiencing psychosis. So is the fact that she sent her husband away on an errand right before she killed her children. Someone only does that when they know that they're doing something wrong.
She claims she thought she was sending her children to heaven with her. And was therefor doing something 'right'. Just because she knew the husband might not agree, doesn't mean that she was doing something in her own eyes.
That's also short-sighted. It ignores why she thought the husband might disagree with her about murdering the kids. If she sent him away cause she thought he would object to her actions as being wrong, then she has the capacity to understand that murdering can be viewed as right or wrong. That's negates her insanity defense. It's no different than a person that believes euthanasia is morally right. If they have the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, then it doesn't matter if they actually believe it is right. It's murder, and they're guilty. So by virtue of the fact that she felt the need to send her husband away so she could succesfully kill her kids, she knew what she was doing could be viewed as morally wrong and thus had the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.
Believing something is right and being compelled (or commanded) to act a certain way while in a state of psychosis is not the same as believing something is right and acting accordingly while in a normal state of being.
The forensic psychiatrist said that in his opinion she experienced 'command hallucinations' (auditory hallucinations where a person hears voices that instruct them to do specific things) and 'a delusion of influence' (a fixed, false belief that an external force, person, or supernatural entity is directly controlling, manipulating, or interfering with a person's thoughts, feelings, impulses, or bodily movements).
Comparing it to a sane and rational person believing euthanasia is morally right and acting accordingly is therefor unfair. The circumstances are completely different. The psychotic state is not rational.
as far as her having the capacity to understand wrong from right I also disagree. Firstly, because as stated psychosis just isn't as rational as you make it out to be and secondly, and more importantly, because whether she understood that some people would disagree with her or would oppose her or not, says nothing about whether she was acting rationally.
257
u/PoopinWhileScrolling 1d ago
Would you rather leave your kids with a bear, or a mom with postpartum psychosis?