Posts
What the freak is going on in Massachusetts?
The state that has already given us the legal circus surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case now has another mother accused of murdering her own children, and apparently the Massachusetts justice system has been handed another opportunity to debate whether consequences are still a thing.
Janette MacAusland, 49, is facing charges in connection with the deaths of her two children. Her attorney is now asking the judge to dismiss the case because of "mental illness." [And anyway, now that Massachusetts has voted for no gestational-age cutoff, it just like abortion, right?]
Because apparently the criminal justice system's latest feature is letting people commit horrific crimes and then asking whether society is being a little too judgmental about it.
"I would suggest that given my client has no record, given the fact that we are now at the four-month mark and we still can't even have a projected exact date of presentation or follow-up presentation, that the court, within its duty and obligation, has to either dismiss or set a reasonable bail with conditions," said her attorney. "I would suggest that reasonable bail would be $25,000."
Yes, $25,000. That's a mere $12,500 per child.
That is less a bail request and more of a "Please remember to check in with your parole officer" starter package.
Later, her attorney appeared to address reporters outside the courtroom.
"This is not Lindsay Clancy 2.0," he lied. "Janette MacAusland is her own woman. But there's been a discussion, a discourse that's opened up in this country about whether or not we wanna criminalize mental illness. And I'm hoping that this district attorney's office and the new district attorney-elect takes a look at this and takes a different approach in how we prosecute women suffering from profound mental health problems."
Fair enough. Mental illness is real, serious and deserving of treatment.
But there is a rather enormous difference between treating mental illness and pretending that mental illness somehow makes the victims of a horrific crime less dead.
Apparently, we are now supposed to have a national conversation about whether prosecuting someone accused of killing her children is "criminalizing mental illness." That's bullcrap.
At some point, maybe we could have a conversation about criminalizing murder. That used to be kind of a popular position.
And if this approach continues, perhaps Massachusetts can simply replace its criminal courts with a wellness center.
Did you murder your children?
No judgment here. Let's talk about your feelings.
Are you a danger to society?
Let's explore that together.
Have you demonstrated that you might kill again?
Wonderful. Here's a $25,000 bail hearing and directions to the nearest mental health clinic. ["Hey, why not go out and kill another child--we're having a special this week."]
Meanwhile, anyone still foolish enough to believe that committing a horrific crime should result in prison time can apparently be dismissed as hopelessly unenlightened.
The real danger, of course, is that eventually the system decides that the people who were harmed are less important than the psychological comfort of the person accused of harming them.
And that is where this gets truly insane.
Mental illness should not automatically mean someone is guilty. It should not automatically mean someone is innocent, either. If someone is genuinely so mentally unstable that she is capable of killing her own children, the obvious question is whether she can safely be allowed back into society.
That isn't cruelty. It's what we call protecting the public.
And no, the answer shouldn't be to lock up every mentally ill person. Nor should it be to pretend that mental illness somehow transforms murder into a therapeutic misunderstanding.
Because if your defense is that you were so profoundly mentally ill that you might suddenly snap and murder children, perhaps the appropriate government response isn't, "Congratulations, you're free to go."
Perhaps it is, "You're going to need some serious supervision." Prison much?
Otherwise, we are going to end up with a justice system where everyone is responsible for everything except the person who actually committed the crime.
And eventually, we will all stand around wondering how this happened.
What could possibly go wrong?
Tweet
"I would suggest that given my client has no record, given the fact that we are now at the four-month mark and we still can't even have a projected exact date of presentation or follow-up presentation, that the court, within its duty and obligation, has to either dismiss or set a reasonable bail with conditions," said her attorney. "I would suggest that reasonable bail would be $25,000."
Yes, $25,000. That's a mere $12,500 per child.
That is less a bail request and more of a "Please remember to check in with your parole officer" starter package.
Later, her attorney appeared to address reporters outside the courtroom.
"This is not Lindsay Clancy 2.0," he lied. "Janette MacAusland is her own woman. But there's been a discussion, a discourse that's opened up in this country about whether or not we wanna criminalize mental illness. And I'm hoping that this district attorney's office and the new district attorney-elect takes a look at this and takes a different approach in how we prosecute women suffering from profound mental health problems."
Fair enough. Mental illness is real, serious and deserving of treatment.
But there is a rather enormous difference between treating mental illness and pretending that mental illness somehow makes the victims of a horrific crime less dead.
Apparently, we are now supposed to have a national conversation about whether prosecuting someone accused of killing her children is "criminalizing mental illness." That's bullcrap.
At some point, maybe we could have a conversation about criminalizing murder. That used to be kind of a popular position.
And if this approach continues, perhaps Massachusetts can simply replace its criminal courts with a wellness center.
Did you murder your children?
No judgment here. Let's talk about your feelings.
Are you a danger to society?
Let's explore that together.
Have you demonstrated that you might kill again?
Wonderful. Here's a $25,000 bail hearing and directions to the nearest mental health clinic. ["Hey, why not go out and kill another child--we're having a special this week."]
Meanwhile, anyone still foolish enough to believe that committing a horrific crime should result in prison time can apparently be dismissed as hopelessly unenlightened.
The real danger, of course, is that eventually the system decides that the people who were harmed are less important than the psychological comfort of the person accused of harming them.
And that is where this gets truly insane.
Mental illness should not automatically mean someone is guilty. It should not automatically mean someone is innocent, either. If someone is genuinely so mentally unstable that she is capable of killing her own children, the obvious question is whether she can safely be allowed back into society.
That isn't cruelty. It's what we call protecting the public.
And no, the answer shouldn't be to lock up every mentally ill person. Nor should it be to pretend that mental illness somehow transforms murder into a therapeutic misunderstanding.
Because if your defense is that you were so profoundly mentally ill that you might suddenly snap and murder children, perhaps the appropriate government response isn't, "Congratulations, you're free to go."
Perhaps it is, "You're going to need some serious supervision." Prison much?
Otherwise, we are going to end up with a justice system where everyone is responsible for everything except the person who actually committed the crime.
And eventually, we will all stand around wondering how this happened.
What could possibly go wrong?
Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment