Acquittal isnt on the table. The question is whether she is guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
An NGRI finding sends her to a mental facility until she is deemed to have been treated, no longer s threat to society, and the mental facilities discretion (essentially) that she is no longer mentally ill.
In essence, NGRI is a life sentence for which you are eligible for parole, and which is served at a mental hospital rather than a prison (theres a but more nuance to it, but thays the gist).
I cannot overstate that no one (excepting, perhaps, a handful of actual crazies on ticktock) is advocating for her aquittal or innocence; the majority "supporting" position is that she should be treated/confined to a mental hospital, rather than being sent to prison, which is consistent with decades of law (that no one cared about previously) where someone suffering from acute psychosis kills during a psychotic episode, and is found NGRI.
Again: no one is hoping for an aquittal. Additionally, to be clear, you are free to think than an NGRI finding is inappropriate based on either, or both, policy reasons (e.g., NGRI shouldnt exist) or factual reasons (e.g., you don't believe she was actually psychotic). But its imperative to understand that no one (again excepting some ticktock crazies) is saying she should be aquitted.
like ever major news network has an article on it. if you’re following the trial idk how you’re not seeing it. reddit has been constantly talking about it
What do you think is the purpose of major news outlets?
Still cant see a real person purporting this. Just social media bots and media articles for clicks, capitalizing on a hot topic
You sent me douchetoubers and mainstream media capitalizing on the story for clicks. Its how they make their living. The only people youve showed me to argue this, were financially motivated to.
A handful of dipshits on social media claim to believe that, but it is by no means "a lot," even if you believe that every single person posting it is sincere in their claims (which I doubt, personally).
You'll feel better if you dont let algorithmic biases convince you that the most extreme and asinine positions taken by fringe members of various groups, are representative of the actual opinions held by group constituents.
Well your first mistake was downloading ticktock lol. For the rest, im just going to copy/paste my other comment, brother:
"A handful of dipshits on social media claim to believe that, but it is by no means "a lot," even if you believe that every single person posting it is sincere in their claims (which I doubt, personally).
You'll feel better if you dont let algorithmic biases convince you that the most extreme and asinine positions taken by fringe members of various groups, are representative of the actual opinions held by group constituents."
Ticktock isnt reality, my man, and the algorithm pushes the most insane takes to drive engagement. I promise you that is not actually a widely held position.
In April 2026, an Iowa judge found Matthew Schleier not guilty by reason of insanity for strangling his 5-year-old son, Jack, to death in October 2024. Sorry to cut and paste off the Internet but I'm lazy and I feel like this case fits the perimeters of your question. He is currently hospitalized at the Cherokee Mental Health Institute.
well the majority opinion is that she should be put down
NGRI is not a life sentence and you just directly said its not, she can be released whenever they deem her no longer a threat. The point everyone is making is that she should never get out under any circumstance. Insanity defense should just be used to take the death penalty off the table, not to get a lighter sentence and potentially get out
well the majority opinion is that she should be put down
I dont know or care if thats the case. Im not talking about the majority opinion in general, im correcting misstatements about what "her supporters" are advocating for.
NGRI is not a life sentence and you just directly said its not, she can be released whenever they deem her no longer a threat.
Brother, i have some bad news about how "parole" works, if you think a life sentence actually keeps people in prison forever. And while i already noted that NGRI confinement to a mental institution is not identical to a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the two sentences are far more similar to each other, than NGRI is to acquittal. Thus, making it useful to illustrate that few, if any, people are advocating for her "acquittal."
Insanity defense should just be used to take the death penalty off the table, not to get a lighter sentence and potentially get out
Then advocate to change the law. But as it is, the law is extremely clear, and has been for a very long time. If you dont have the adequate men's rea for a crime, you are not criminally culpable for it. If you meet a states criteria for insanity, then you cant have had the appropriate men's rea, and thus cannot be criminally culpable.
Again, youre free to believe that NGRI should be abolished, but thats a policy belief for the future, not something you can just handwave into justifying why this particular woman should be treated differently than hundreds of other men, women, and kids over the last ~50 years (the rough length of time that NGRI has become widespread amongst the states).
In summary; what you all should be advocating for is changing the law, if you actually cared about NGRI, victims remedies, and public safety. Instead, yall are just dogpiling ineffectually onto a case yall barely understand, in a manner strikingly similar to how leftists will performatively bemoan every officer-involved shooting, even when they have no idea of the law, facts, or policy concerns.
Just picking a case and shitting all over it because you don't like the outcome, and dont understand the issues, doesnt help anyone (including the people you seem to be hoping to protect/benefit).
I dont think you know the difference between life sentence with the possibility of parole after a certain time and life without parole. You seem to like to talk without actually knowing that much
A smart person can explain a complex subject with a few words, an idiot needs a mountain of words to explain a simple subject. Your wall of text is all I need to see
You right I should have been more clear. The idiots defending her insanity plea despite clear evidence pointing towards premeditated murder make a compelling case to repeal the 19th.
clear evidence pointing towards premeditated murder
Elaborate? Im not invested in the outcome of the case either way, and thus may have missed things, but this is the first im hearing of any such evidence.
24
u/MrJakked 3h ago
Acquittal isnt on the table. The question is whether she is guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
An NGRI finding sends her to a mental facility until she is deemed to have been treated, no longer s threat to society, and the mental facilities discretion (essentially) that she is no longer mentally ill.
In essence, NGRI is a life sentence for which you are eligible for parole, and which is served at a mental hospital rather than a prison (theres a but more nuance to it, but thays the gist).
I cannot overstate that no one (excepting, perhaps, a handful of actual crazies on ticktock) is advocating for her aquittal or innocence; the majority "supporting" position is that she should be treated/confined to a mental hospital, rather than being sent to prison, which is consistent with decades of law (that no one cared about previously) where someone suffering from acute psychosis kills during a psychotic episode, and is found NGRI.
Again: no one is hoping for an aquittal. Additionally, to be clear, you are free to think than an NGRI finding is inappropriate based on either, or both, policy reasons (e.g., NGRI shouldnt exist) or factual reasons (e.g., you don't believe she was actually psychotic). But its imperative to understand that no one (again excepting some ticktock crazies) is saying she should be aquitted.