Killing children

@Mott-The-Hoople said
probably will win for stupidest comment ever

If they were there for the mental state of the mother and not the kids, it did not matter that the kids were killed.

@KellyJay said
If they were there for the mental state of the mother and not the kids, it did not matter that the kids were killed.

Gee and I thought it was a murder trial.

@KellyJay said
If they were there for the mental state of the mother and not the kids, it did not matter that the kids were killed.

if the children hadnt been killed there would not be a need for a trial.

this trial was to determine if clancy should be held accountable for killing the children, insanity was just a defense.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
if the children hadnt been killed there would not be a need for a trial.

this trial was to determine if clancy should be held accountable for killing the children, insanity was just a defense.

JUST a defense? If she is really nuts that IS a VALID defense and she would go to some mental hospital

@sonhouse said
JUST a defense? If she is really nuts that IS a VALID defense and she would go to some mental hospital

"If she is really nuts'

>IF< a frog had wings it wouldnt bump its ass.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
"If she is really nuts'

>IF< a frog had wings it wouldnt bump its ass.

The point is that has to be confirmed by Psychologists or shrinks. and results like that are NOT obvious, like what if they find she has a brain tumor interfering with her thinking?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
if the children hadnt been killed there would not be a need for a trial.

this trial was to determine if clancy should be held accountable for killing the children, insanity was just a defense.

Not one about the murder of the children, but a state of mind.

@no1marauder said
Gee and I thought it was a murder trial.

Except it was more about a state of mind than the death of the children.

@KellyJay said
Not one about the murder of the children, but a state of mind.

that is the defense, the trial was about the death of the tree children. both sides agreed she did it, the trial was about could she escape punishment for killing the three children

the way she did it should very much be in consideration

@sonhouse said
The point is that has to be confirmed by Psychologists or shrinks. and results like that are NOT obvious, like what if they find she has a brain tumor interfering with her thinking?

what if they find she had a gold monkey up her ass shyting out gold coins?

@KellyJay said
Except it was more about a state of mind than the death of the children.

Many criminal trials are about the state of mind of the defendant, not just the relative few involving the insanity defense. In general, higher degrees of mental culpability merit greater punishment. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/15.05

But US law requires not just a guilty act ("Actus Rea" ) but also a guilty mind ("Mens Rea" ). And US law dating from Anglo-Saxon tradition recognizes that severe mental illness can prevent one from having the understanding or control to have a guilty mind.

That's what we have trials for. Maybe you'd prefer something like your Holy Book recommends i.e. public stoning after (or before) extrajudicial assumption of guilt but you'll have to ask State legislatures for suitable amendments.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
that is the defense, the trial was about the death of the tree children. both sides agreed she did it, the trial was about could she escape punishment for killing the three children

the way she did it should very much be in consideration

Was there evidence submitted about "how she did it"?

@no1marauder said
Many criminal trials are about the state of mind of the defendant, not just the relative few involving the insanity defense. In general, higher degrees of mental culpability merit greater punishment. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/15.05

But US law requires not just a guilty act ("Actus Rea" ) but also a guilty mind ("Mens Rea" ). And US law dating from ...[text shortened]... extrajudicial assumption of guilt but you'll have to ask State legislatures for suitable amendments.

If someone committed a crime, they should go on trial for it. If you want to discuss mental health, that should be done, sure, but it should never let someone off the hook for murder or crimes of that nature. Should that guy get off the hook for murder, who stabbed that girl from Ukraine for no reason, or for lighting someone on fire, pushing them onto railroad tracks, or driving through a crowd of people?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
that is the defense, the trial was about the death of the tree children. both sides agreed she did it, the trial was about could she escape punishment for killing the three children

the way she did it should very much be in consideration

Fine, but if she did it, that alone makes her guilty.

@KellyJay said
Fine, but if she did it, that alone makes her guilty.

agree