Killing children

@vivify said
No. I don't think any reasonable person could just pretend they don't know 3 children were murdered including a baby.

But legally speaking, that's not what the jury was to focus on.

Yes, that was not what they were there for; they were not there due to three dead kids.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
are you serious? you think the jury was to ignore what she had done?

Yes, the kids were secondary.

@vivify said
A jury usually doesn't decide how serious a crime is, that's done prior to even getting a trial. Laws exist to cover how to proceed for each type crime and what charges to account for how serious it is long before it gets to trial.

A jury typically only decides if conditions are met for guilt or innocence.

Do I feel she should return to society? My first thought is ...[text shortened]... proven to be a danger to children, probably not.

I'm honestly not sure what the right call is.

" My first thought is that with treatment and after serving time, yes, she should return to society."

She was being treated when she murdered the children.

@KellyJay said
Yes, that was not what they were there for; they were not there due to three dead kids.

probably will win for stupidest comment ever

@vivify said
I agree. But that's not what the jury was voting on.

The jury had to decide whether the defendant's mental state prevented her culpability. The jury was *not* asked to decide how serious the crime was.

they were not asked to ignore it either

@KellyJay said
Yes, that was not what they were there for; they were not there due to three dead kids.

Unfortunately, this isn't like one of the fairy tales you believe in where people can be risen from the dead.

The legal system can only dispense justice as best as human beings can determine it.

@vivify said
A jury usually doesn't decide how serious a crime is, that's done prior to even getting a trial. Laws exist to cover how to proceed for each type crime and what charges to account for how serious it is long before it gets to trial.

A jury typically only decides if conditions are met for guilt or innocence.

Do I feel she should return to society? My first thought is ...[text shortened]... proven to be a danger to children, probably not.

I'm honestly not sure what the right call is.

always uphold your right to jury nullification

@no1marauder said
Hardly. That she was being treated for a mental condition is simply evidence she had one.

I already told you; IF she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity (she wasn't), she'd be released only if and when a judge found she was no longer mentally ill or a danger to the community.

Is that unclear?

"That she was being treated for a mental condition is simply evidence she had one."

no, that is evidence she was being treated, nothing proves she had a mental condition

@no1marauder said
IF a court finds that a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is eligible for release because they are no longer mentally ill, it can set such conditions as it sees fit.

and therein lies the problem

@Mott-The-Hoople said
"That she was being treated for a mental condition is simply evidence she had one."

no, that is evidence she was being treated, nothing proves she had a mental condition

Not sure what you mean by "proves".

No amount of evidence can provide 100% certainty if that's the sense you are using the word in.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
and therein lies the problem

How's that a problem?

@no1marauder said
Not sure what you mean by "proves".

No amount of evidence can provide 100% certainty if that's the sense you are using the word in.

taking medication/treatment for a condition does not prove one has that condition, as you claimed

@Mott-The-Hoople said
taking medication/treatment for a condition does not prove one has that condition, as you claimed

I didn't say it "proved" anything.

I said it was evidence supporting the claim that the defendant had a mental condition.

@no1marauder said
Gee any idea how to do so i.e. reduce repeat offenders? Maybe a program rather than another post filled with empty platitudes?

bring back chain gangs...no one fears being locked up now, the liberals protect them from real punishment

@no1marauder said
Unfortunately, this isn't like one of the fairy tales you believe in where people can be risen from the dead.

The legal system can only dispense justice as best as human beings can determine it.

Yes, with fingers on the scale, it can push down paths unrelated to justice.