Lindsay Clancy -Mother of 3 kills her kids during psychotic episode

[Apparition of Jack]

6 hours ago, LordFall said:

What is the angle against the left? 

She's basically be institutionalized for life there isn't really another plausible outcome. Mistrial is not its gonna end like that. 

You think she was pressured into a trad-wife life and hated it and this was her flip out moment? It makes sense but I can't really wrap my mind around it, seems quite insane. 

 

Look. I can’t say for sure. All the stuff I said is just my own intuition / feelings, so I could be wrong. But it’s hard not to get those vibes from the whole story.

I don’t think she was “pressured”, I just think as a young, white Christian mother that’s what she “expected” life to be like and couldn’t conceive of an alternative. When this suburban dream life turned out to be existentially empty though, she turned to “mental health issues” as a way to cope/find meaning and ended up taking that WAY too far.

Also, I suspect a degree of narcissism / psychopathy in her too. I mean, a mother would have to be to genuinely murder their own kids and make up a whole random story about psychosis etc to do so. There’s genuinely a lot of spiritual rot in “idyllic America” and I feel this case is just a symptom of that. 
 

Again though these are all just my feelings. I could be wrong, although I have time imagining why else she would, you know, strangle her kids to death.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Being institutionalized is not punishment.

Are Norwegian jails punishment?

[Basman]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Are Norwegian jails punishment?

Norwegian jails are fruity as. They have to play games to keep Breivik locked up. 

[LordFall]

Well rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment for punishment's sake right? Punishment as a concept is only really useful for scaring criminals away from crime or perhaps to make the victim's family feel better (even that's a dubious justification) and in this case the victim is the husband that got remarried right away so I don't know if punishing his ex wife does much for him. This woman has to live with what's she done for the rest of her life, that seems punishment enough as long as her psychiatric team is confident she won't hurt anyone else. I think that's why she's getting so much support because people feel her pain and think she's been through enough already. 

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Basman said:

Norwegian jails are fruity as. They have to play games to keep Breivik locked up. 

Being stripped of autonomy is arguably the greatest punishment you could get (which is what jail is). Imagine you're just living your life and one day the government tells you to move to a different country and you are not allowed to leave. People love travelling/moving to other countries, when they are the ones deciding it. People also love solitary confinement when they are the ones deciding it — it's called meditation.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Basman]

I think the west in general is overly soft on crime. Especially when it comes to serious crime. I think murder should lead to capital in most cases. Like the perpetrators feelings are more important than the victim. Won't somebody please think of the child murders feelings?

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Basman said:

I think the west in general is overly soft on crime. Especially when it comes to serious crime. I think murder should lead to capital in most cases. Like the perpetrators feelings are more important than the victim. Won't somebody please think of the child murders feelings?

I think the question should be what creates a functional society, not necessarily whose feelings are hurt or not (although that could be a factor).

[Basman]

30 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Well rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment for punishment's sake right?

No, that's stupid and overly idealistic. With that logic you can kill people and be released again on good behavior. It completely shits on the victims. 21 years is nothing compared to a life. It's a joke. 

This liberal compassion undermines the victims of serious crime.

[Carl-Richard]

@Basman Genuine question: Do you think a sense of retribution for the victims is necessary for a functional society? I discussed this with a youth politician once, and he seemed to hint that it was, probably while hinting to Breivik.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Apparition of Jack]

49 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Well rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment for punishment's sake right? Punishment as a concept is only really useful for scaring criminals away from crime or perhaps to make the victim's family feel better (even that's a dubious justification) and in this case the victim is the husband that got remarried right away so I don't know if punishing his ex wife does much for him. This woman has to live with what's she done for the rest of her life, that seems punishment enough as long as her psychiatric team is confident she won't hurt anyone else. I think that's why she's getting so much support because people feel her pain and think she's been through enough already. 

I don’t think she’s repentant. Not truly, anyway. She (and too many of her supporters) seems to have treated her kids like a “minor annoyance” that “maybe should’ve been treated better” but the fact they’re gone isn’t a big deal, rather than, you know, actual humans with full lives ahead of them. 
 

Kids arent playthings. They’re not Lego sets or washing machines. They’re growing young people who deserve love and protection. She broke that sacred trust yet barely gives a fuck, and if she’s rewarded (ie not convicted) that sets a terrible precedent. That’s why I believe she deserves to be punished.

Edited 41 minutes ago by Apparition of Jack

[Basman]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think the question should be what creates a functional society, not necessarily whose feelings are hurt or not (although that could be a factor).

Technocratic delusion. The world operates on feelings and intuition. You don't want to live next door to a child murderer.

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Genuine question: Do you think a sense of retribution for the victims is necessary for a functional society (today)? I discussed this with a youth politician once, and he seemed to hint that it was, probably while hinting to Breivik.

You don't want Breivik to be your children's school teacher. 

Releasing him after 10-20 years on good behavior is completely unacceptable, even if technically he'll never kill again. The community themselves will kill him. He would get curb stomped at Majorstuen station by a drunk bearded middle-aged man 

[LordFall]

22 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

I don’t think she’s repentant. Not truly, anyway. She (and too many of her supporters) seems to have treated her kids like a “minor annoyance” that “maybe should’ve been treated better” but the fact they’re gone isn’t a big deal, rather than, you know, actual humans with full lives ahead of them. 
 

Kids arent playthings. They’re not Lego sets or washing machines. They’re growing young people who deserve love and protection. She broke that sacred trust yet barely gives a fuck, and if she’s rewarded (ie not convicted) that sets a terrible precedent. That’s why I believe she deserves to be punished.

How do you know she's not repentant? I imagine that if you had killed your own kids that would shatter your psyche in all kinds of ways that would leave you pretty emotionless and not seeming like a normal person to others.

32 minutes ago, Basman said:

No, that's stupid and overly idealistic. With that logic you can kill people and be released again on good behavior. It completely shits on the victims. 21 years is nothing compared to a life. It's a joke. 

This liberal compassion undermines the victims of serious crime.

They do release murderers after they've served their sentences. What would you do then capital punishment for anyone that kills someone?

I think we moved away from the death sentence and that's led to a generally better society.

What goal do you aim to accomplish by further punishment of the murderers if the goal of rehabilitation has already been achieved? Do you have compassion for the perpetrators or only the victims? 

It is an important discussion to have. 

Edited 19 minutes ago by LordFall

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, Basman said:

Technocratic delusion. The world operates on feelings and intuition. You don't want to live next door to a child murderer.

Feelings and intuition are counted in "functional". It's just the equation is also larger.

 

15 minutes ago, Basman said:

You don't want Breivik to be your children's school teacher. 

Releasing him after 10-20 years on good behavior is completely unacceptable, even if technically he'll never kill again. The community themselves will kill him. He would get curb stomped at Majorstuen station by a drunk bearded middle-aged man 

There is that and then there is the "feeling" of living in a society that you know can take your life if it so decides (is that a good feeling or not?). And the fact that executioners suffer terrible rates of PTSD.