Your words are contraindicated by her researching the selected method and deliberately removing the father from the situation - and tracking his whereabouts - while she killed them. To be not guilty by reason of insanity, she had to not have the ability at the time to know what she was doing was wrong. The research and subterfuge says she did know, in my view.
I have also read that she had doctor shopped for her meds.
We disagree, but I appreciate your calm and rational approach to the debate.
"Crazy, not stupid."
“We disagree, but I appreciate your calm and rational approach to the debate.”
I’m too old and beat up to argue with anyone anymore. So all of my thoughts are calm and sometimes rational.
If long-term, chronic drug abuse results in a permanent mental disease or psychosis that persists even when sober, some jurisdictions allow a standard insanity defense.
“Involvement in the criminal justice system often results from illegal drug-seeking behavior and participation in illegal activities that reflect, in part, disrupted behavior ensuing from brain changes triggered by repeated drug use.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2681083/
“An alternative, drug centred model of drug action, stresses that psychiatric drugs are, first and foremost, psychoactive drugs. They induce complex, varied, often unpredictable physical and mental states that patients typically experience as global, rather than distinct therapeutic effects and side effects (table). Drugs may be useful because some altered states can suppress the manifestations of certain mental disorders.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3230235/
So according to these articles, it is possible for a person on these types of drugs to do many things from lie to get more to commit violent crimes. They go in and out of reality.
So, how can you claossify her killings as preplanned murders when she may not have had the ability to accomplish them without the drugs. And does that make her a murderer or a doctor’s prescribed patient that didn’t know at the time, or even now, what she was doing. And that one jurer that hung the trial probably did just that. He wouldn’t call it a capital offense to murder but possibly to manslaughter under insanity based upon the drugs.
A few say that she went after more drugs so she was contributory. Possibly. But she had been under problems for a while and in her thinking, if drugs help, get more. She could do tht under srug stimulation. It is up to the doctors to protect her from herself in that case. They didn’t. And five of them blew it. So are they contributory? Quite a web woven isn’t it?
wy69