Media/court coverage of parents who kill

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/mother-on-trial-for-daughter-s-murder-had-false-view-of-her-autistic-condition-court-1.4060288


aside from the following:

- plea to set aside sentiment before presenting a jury case heavily sympathising with the killer
- court-ordered anonymity of the killer, ffs
- no sign of an argument at all for hard prosecution, its all defence and sympathy and treatment
- mention of rehabilitation going well, therefore presumably a release schedule well under way




thought experiment:

imagine the father (who gets mentioned once, as an aside quoting his dying child) had done this.

imagine the coverage and the prosecutorial approach.

everything about this article is sickening.

Calhoun

This is indeed sexist but more so against women as there is still that bias about mother being in the home and being a caregiver.

Although not on the same level as murder suicide the crime in this case is particularly horrible. If i remember correctly the culprit is from a minority religion and that may have shaped her view of the child issue being worse than it was and that her decision was more calculated.

Boggles

She was clearly insane.

Very tragic case.

I don't understand the outrage about anonymity, it was more than likely to protect the husband who doesn't blame her for the killing.

spurious

If the father had the same mental illness as the woman involved, I suspect the reporting would be much the same.
There but for the grace of God etc.. Mental illness is a bastard.

Gatling

Very tragic case ,

But doubt any real justice will be done , just because she became obsessed with a diagnosis her child didn't have

lozenges

She was acutely psychotic at the time, which has been agreed on by psychiatrists both for the prosecution and defense.
What is wrong with you? Mental illness to the point where a person is unable to distinguish right from wrong is a valid defense.
This would be the same if it were the father.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/mother-on-trial-for-daughter-s-murder-had-false-view-of-her-autistic-condition-court-1.4060288


aside from the following:

- plea to set aside sentiment before presenting a jury case heavily sympathising with the killer
- court-ordered anonymity of the killer, ffs
- no sign of an argument at all for hard prosecution, its all defence and sympathy and treatment
- mention of rehabilitation going well, therefore presumably a release schedule well under way




thought experiment:

imagine the father (who gets mentioned once, as an aside quoting his dying child) had done this.

imagine the coverage and the prosecutorial approach.

everything about this article is sickening.

Ahem

ohnonotgmail

Gatling wrote: »

Very tragic case ,

But doubt any real justice will be done , just because she became obsessed with a diagnosis her child didn't have

justice was done. the woman was suffering from a severe mental illness.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/mother-on-trial-for-daughter-s-murder-had-false-view-of-her-autistic-condition-court-1.4060288


aside from the following:

- plea to set aside sentiment before presenting a jury case heavily sympathising with the killer
- court-ordered anonymity of the killer, ffs
- no sign of an argument at all for hard prosecution, its all defence and sympathy and treatment
- mention of rehabilitation going well, therefore presumably a release schedule well under way




thought experiment:

imagine the father (who gets mentioned once, as an aside quoting his dying child) had done this.

imagine the coverage and the prosecutorial approach.

everything about this article is sickening.

It’s because of people like you, who has no medical professional qualification, who refuses, for some reason you can’t verbalize, to accept the opinion of the qaulified psychiatric medical professionals, that these defendants can’t be named.
Do you not accept any medical professional opinions? If so, is your life not very complicated?
Why do you want to know who she is ? Do you want to go to her house and smash all her windows?

spurious

It doesn't bear thinking about how she will feel once more stable. Dreadful case.

Eric Cartman

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-found-not-guilty-of-murder-of-girlfriend-by-reason-of-insanity-1.3146684

its often treated the same way. I think these type of cases are a bad example

however I think the point about the massive gender verdict gap does stand, our country is remiss to put women in prison and solicitors are infinitely more likely to play the 'somebody else made her do it' card in the case of women, when they do get convicted they receive much shorter sentences and we have even had politicians claiming women shouldnt go to prison at all. Its a sexist disgrace and needs to be tackled.

Overheal

tbh I think Ireland needs sweeping criminal justice reform - courts rule on precedent and on law, without new law they have to rule on precedent, and irish legal precedent is... lots and lots of suspended sentences. But I don't think it sounds like this woman will ever be capable of doing anything like this again, much less be able to forget it.

Odelay

What good would naming her serve?

Eric Cartman

Odelay wrote: »

What good would naming her serve?

so we could know. They named oisin conroy, theyve named plenty of others who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why name anyone for anything...

splinter65

Eric Cartman wrote: »

so we could know. They named oisin conroy, theyve named plenty of others who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why name anyone for anything...

Why would you want to know Eric? What difference is knowing who she is going to make to your life?

the dark phantom

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-found-not-guilty-of-murder-of-girlfriend-by-reason-of-insanity-1.3146684

its often treated the same way. I think these type of cases are a bad example

however I think the point about the massive gender verdict gap does stand, our country is remiss to put women in prison and solicitors are infinitely more likely to play the 'somebody else made her do it' card in the case of women, when they do get convicted they receive much shorter sentences and we have even had politicians claiming women shouldnt go to prison at all. Its a sexist disgrace and needs to be tackled.

Ireland is extremely tolerate towards females in the justice system especially females who are middle or upper class. Remember the scum doctor in Kilkenny who also killed her child and the sympathetic treatment she got. This woman shouldn't have been around her child when it was clear she had mental issues, Her husband should be ashamed of himself for tolerating the situation in which his daughter was in danger. The Pakistani born Carlow father who killed his children didn't get any sympathy or lenient sentencing even though he was also clearly bonkers, maybe if he played GAA or was a school teacher or doctor he would have got some.

the dark phantom

Odelay wrote: »

What good would naming her serve?

But a fellow caught with a small amount of drugs is bad enough to be named and shamed whereas a child killer isn't !!

We all know who she is anyway.

ohnonotgmail

the dark phantom wrote: »

But a fellow caught with a small amount of drugs is bad enough to be named and shamed whereas a child killer isn't !!

We all know who she is anyway.

you missed the "not guilty" part

the dark phantom

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you missed the "not guilty" part

Did I call her a murderer or say she committed manslaughter ??

The defence never claimed she didn't kill her daughter, She will always be a scum child killer who killed a child with her own hands.

strandroad

Calhoun wrote: »

Although not on the same level as murder suicide the crime in this case is particularly horrible. If i remember correctly the culprit is from a minority religion and that may have shaped her view of the child issue being worse than it was and that her decision was more calculated.

I don't think she is from a minority religion unless converted later in life, you might be thinking of another case? And there are other children in the family so it's probably why she was not named publicly.

SEPT 23 1989

had the father murdered the innocent child he would be a monster etc

lozenges

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-found-not-guilty-of-murder-of-girlfriend-by-reason-of-insanity-1.3146684

its often treated the same way. I think these type of cases are a bad example

however I think the point about the massive gender verdict gap does stand, our country is remiss to put women in prison and solicitors are infinitely more likely to play the 'somebody else made her do it' card in the case of women, when they do get convicted they receive much shorter sentences and we have even had politicians claiming women shouldnt go to prison at all. Its a sexist disgrace and needs to be tackled.

I totally agree that discrepancies in sentencing (and indeed family law decisions) depending on gender is discriminatory, but using an extremely tragic case, where the decision that this person was not guilty by reason of insanity is not disputed, is not an ideal way to highlight that problem.

SusieBlue

I believe the respective psychiatrists for both the defence & prosecution agreed that this woman suffered a psychotic break and was completely detached from reality when she committed the crime.
Two independent professionals found her to be suffering from psychosis and diagnosed her with same, but no, the experts on the Internet know better :rolleyes:

She wasn’t in her right mind.
Both her and her wider family will suffer the consequences of her actions for the rest of their lives, regardless.
No punishment is worse than that.

And obviously there is a need to keep her anonymous due to the prehistoric, judgmental, ignorant attitudes still displayed by a lot of people in this country towards mental health.
Both for her own safety and her family’s safety, to protect them from vigilante attacks.

Why does everything on Boards have to turn into a bitter competition about how men have it worse than women?
This is simply a tragedy all round, for all involved.

Nermal

SusieBlue wrote: »

Two independent professionals found her to be suffering from psychosis and diagnosed her with same, but no, the experts on the Internet know better :rolleyes:

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s because of people like you, who has no medical professional qualification

People with medical qualifications cannot reliably distinguish sane from insane people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

So why is it a defence?

SusieBlue

Nermal wrote: »

People with medical qualifications cannot reliably distinguish sane from insane people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

So why is it a defence?

Maybe ask a judge?
What reason do you have to believe that these professionals got it wrong? Besides your own prejudices, of course.
There is a reason that expert reports and testimonies are crucial in our legal system for both convictions and acquittals.

To dismiss them entirely based on one study and use that as a defence for calling to question the verdict of this case is absolutely vile.

Stark

Don't agree that the coverage would be less favourable if it was the father. There are plenty of cases of murder-suicide committed by fathers and the response of late always seems to be about how terrible it was that mental illness drove him to it.

I do worry that modern day hysteria around autism contributed to the situation. Especially with the anti-vaxxer crowd trying to frame it as a disease worse than death to try and scare people away from vaccines. While an accurate diagnosis is good for getting people access to the right supports to help them live higher quality of life, it's also attaching a disease label to people who years ago would have just been considered "a bit odd". Which isn't great when you're dealing with parents who are somewhat unhinged. I've heard of some horrific cases of abuse (bleach enemas for example) committed by parents who thought their autistic child was "broken".

lozenges

Nermal wrote: »

People with medical qualifications cannot reliably distinguish sane from insane people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

So why is it a defence?

So based on a single study performed over 40years ago we should discredit the entire field of psychiatry? Please.
Do you accept that delusions and psychotic breaks are real conditions?
Being found not guilty by reason of insanity is not necessarily preferable to being found guilty of murder. If the perpetrators' mental health does not recover and they are considered to be an ongoing risk, they can be held indefinitely, i.e.for the rest of their life if necessary. This is not the case for people convicted of murder.

Calhoun

strandroad wrote: »

I don't think she is from a minority religion unless converted later in life, you might be thinking of another case? And there are other children in the family so it's probably why she was not named publicly.

Must have been another case in thinking of.

thenightman

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

had the father murdered the innocent child he would be a monster etc

Bollocks. That case with the school principal who killed his entire family.& himself a few years back where he was given the usual country platitudes of a good GAA man, totally out of character etc begs to differ.

The woman in this case was demonstrably not well mentally since her college days, and was judged by forensic psychiatrists to be not responsible for her actions due to being not of sound mind. Move on to the next shiny Daily Mail article to be outraged by ffs.

1641

Nermal wrote: »

People with medical qualifications cannot reliably distinguish sane from insane people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

So why is it a defence?

And people so inclined can fool doctors in relation to physical illness - including to the extent of having multiple operations performed (Manchusen's). So should medical evidence be disregarded in court?

In a case such as this the Psychiatrists will be aware of the possibility of someone feigning (which would be very unusual in the case of someone self presenting at a psychiatric institution, as in the study you referenced). Nevertheless both the defence and prosecution witnesses were in full agreement. Good enough for me.

Odd that some people in this thread were diagnosing people they never even met while the expert opinion of experienced and trained people who carried out direct assessment can be dismissed.

Calhoun

thenightman wrote: »

Bollocks. That case with the school principal who killed his entire family.& himself a few years back where he was given the usual country platitudes of a good GAA man, totally out of character etc begs to differ.

The woman in this case was demonstrably not well mentally since her college days, and was judged by forensic psychiatrists to be not responsible for her actions due to being not of sound mind. Move on to the next shiny Daily Mail article to be outraged by ffs.

Was it not the local community who were sympathizing in the hawe case ? Haven't we since had a big push in the media online and traditional about him (RTE program).

Nermal

lozenges wrote: »

So based on a single study performed over 40years ago we should discredit the entire field of psychiatry?

‘Discredit the whole field’ is putting words in my mouth. But it certainly means that a ‘diagnosis’ on the basis of self-reported symptoms should not be relied on in a criminal trial. I cannot find any record of attempts to repeat it, but neither has there been any advance in those 40 years that would prevent exactly the same thing happening.

lozenges wrote: »

Do you accept that delusions and psychotic breaks are real conditions?

Almost certainly, yes. But I have no way to be sure of their existence or diagnose them, and neither does anyone else, regardless of their qualifications. On that basis, why shouldn’t people who claim to have them should receive the same sentence as anyone else?

splinter65

Nermal wrote: »

‘Discredit the whole field’ is putting words in my mouth. But it certainly means that a ‘diagnosis’ on the basis of self-reported symptoms should not be relied on in a criminal trial. I cannot find any record of attempts to repeat it, but neither has there been any advance in those 40 years that would prevent exactly the same thing happening.



Almost certainly, yes. But I have no way to be sure of their existence or diagnose them, and neither does anyone else, regardless of their qualifications. On that basis, why shouldn’t people who claim to have them should receive the same sentence as anyone else?

So in a nutshell you would prefer to ignore professional medical opinion and diagnosis and just send seriously ill people to prison as if they weren’t seriously ill at all.
I see.
Do you apply this total disregard of medical opinion in favor of your own opinion to all spheres of medicine or just psychiatry?

DexyDrain

It was reported from the inquest that Alan Hawe was likely suffering from depression and/or psychosis when he murdered his family. Strange that psychiatry has regained respectability and reliability in time for this discussion.

hatrickpatrick

I'm not going to post it here as it would obviously be contempt of court, but what strikes me as odd about this case is that the court ordered anonymity even though the names of both the mother and the deceased were widely reported in the media at the time of the incident, and that the papers today have been allowed to give a timeline as to when the incident occurred which leaves practically no doubt as to which case is being referred to. I find it very odd that they'd order anonymity in a case in which thanks to previous reporting, the cat is very much out of the bag. Everyone I've spoken to about this case knows full well who was involved due to the extensive media coverage of the discovery of that poor girl's body at the time, the arrest of the mother, and how upsetting it was for the first responders in the Gardaí and emergency services.

lozenges

DexyDrain wrote: »

It was reported from the inquest that Alan Hawe was likely suffering from depression and/or psychosis when he murdered his family. Strange that psychiatry has regained respectability and reliability in time for this discussion.

You can't detect psychiatric disorders from an inquest. They are not organic illnesses.

Alan Hawe murdered his family. Someone who has the foresight to transfer money to his relatives to avoid it going to his wife's family is able to conceptualise the future consequences of his actions.
Having a history of mental illness, or even an active mental illness such as depression does not mean that everyone with those conditions are unable to distinguish right from wrong or understand the consequences of their actions.
In contrast someone having an acute psychotic episode has lost contact with reality and is not able to either understand right from wrong or the consequences of their actions.

DexyDrain

lozenges wrote: »

You can't detect psychiatric disorders from an inquest. They are not organic illnesses.

Alan Hawe murdered his family. Someone who has the foresight to transfer money to his relatives to avoid it going to his wife's family is able to conceptualise the future consequences of his actions.
Having a history of mental illness, or even an active mental illness such as depression does not mean that everyone with those conditions are unable to distinguish right from wrong or understand the consequences of their actions.
In contrast someone having an acute psychotic episode has lost contact with reality and is not able to either understand right from wrong or the consequences of their actions.

The director of the Central Mental Hospital reviewed all of the medical notes and concluded that Hawe had progressed to a ‘severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms’.

You can’t say for sure he transferred money to avoid it going to his wife’s family, we haven’t seen the note. He may have transferred money to pay for the funerals for all we know and would be less likely to have details for the in-laws.

It’s just a starkly different response to similar medical opinions.

SusieBlue

DexyDrain wrote: »

The director of the Central Mental Hospital reviewed all of the medical notes and concluded that Hawe had progressed to a ‘severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms’.

You can’t say for sure he transferred money to avoid it going to his wife’s family, we haven’t seen the note. He may have transferred money to pay for the funerals for all we know and would be less likely to have details for the in-laws.

It’s just a starkly different response to similar medical opinions.

The woman in this case was definitively diagnosed by two independant professionals who assessed her.
There is a big difference between that, and saying Alan Hawe was "likely" suffering from a severe depressive episode, after his death when he couldn't even be evaluated.

Trying to point score saying men have it worse than women because of those two specific cases is in extremely poor taste when they have very little in common.

ohnonotgmail

DexyDrain wrote: »

The director of the Central Mental Hospital reviewed all of the medical notes and concluded that Hawe had progressed to a ‘severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms’.

You can’t say for sure he transferred money to avoid it going to his wife’s family, we haven’t seen the note. He may have transferred money to pay for the funerals for all we know and would be less likely to have details for the in-laws.

It’s just a starkly different response to similar medical opinions.

But he never actually met Hawe. all his info was second hand. the lady in this case was diagnosed in person by multiple psychiatrists.

GoneHome

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1024/1085444-courts-mother/

Murder your own child but get released on bail, ffs this country at times....................

Faugheen

GoneHome wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1024/1085444-courts-mother/

Murder your own child but get released on bail, ffs this country at times....................

I see the phrase ‘not guilty’ has no meaning to you.

please god she gets better soon eh, back to her kids.

who she was safe to mind at the time and will soon be safe to mind again, according to the experts responsible for her care when she was a psychotic who killed a child and are happy to plead her case in court

my objection to the idea of "not guilty by reason of insanity" and the ensuing coverage in a case like this is that it reduces the crime and the victims to a symptom of the person on trial.

the mental health lobby (be that advocacy for sufferers or the industry based on it) dont give two hoots for the child dead here.

if this woman was a known risk, she shouldnt have had custody of children. if she was not responsible for her actions, then someone must be responsible for her access to do this. otherwise what?

"nobody is to blame"

bull****.

and i can live with the projections of my monstrosity from anyone who doesnt like it- as the product of a home where parents weren't particularly fit to raise kids but our welfare was secondary to their diagnosis and treatment.

high five to the experts and high fives to anyone chuffed to bits for her successful defence. i guess there's just nothing to be done when a mental patient kills a kid, huh? i mean whoever could have guessed she was a risk?

none of the experts anyway, but let's pretend that their word is iron when it comes to court.

stinks.

Gatling

Faugheen wrote: »

I see the phrase ‘not guilty’ has no meaning to you.

By reason of insanity - why would she be detained /committed if she is innocent

SusieBlue

Gatling wrote: »

By reason of insanity - why would she be detained /committed if she is innocent

For her own safety and the safety of others, until she is mentally stable and well again?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

For her own safety and the safety of others, until she is mentally stable and well again?

why was she out to do it in the first place, under this reasoning?

debok

SusieBlue wrote: »

For her own safety and the safety of others, until she is mentally stable and well again?

How she released on bail. Is she mentally stable now until they find a bed for her?

ohnonotgmail

Gatling wrote: »

By reason of insanity - why would she be detained /committed if she is innocent

for treatment.

SusieBlue

[Deleted User] wrote: »

why was she out to do it in the first place, under this reasoning?

I see nothing in the linked article that suggests that any psychiatrists, doctors or indeed Gardaí were aware of the woman’s psychosis before she committed the crime.
It was only discovered after the fact when her mental state was evaluated.

Why would she not be ‘out to do it in the first place’, when no one, least of all herself, knew she was even mentally unwell and experiencing psychosis?

SusieBlue

debok wrote: »

How she released on bail. Is she mentally stable now until they find a bed for her?

How would I know the answer to such a question? If they released her until they have a bed for her she’s presumably being monitored and under curfew, and she probably isn’t considered to be an immediate danger to herself or anyone else.

However that’s pure speculation and I don’t know the answer to it any more than you do.

debok

SusieBlue wrote: »

How would I know the answer to such a question? If they released her until they have a bed for her she’s presumably being monitored and under curfew, and she probably isn’t considered to be an immediate danger to herself or anyone else.

However that’s pure speculation and I don’t know the answer to it any more than you do.

Sorry didn't mean to quote you.You can Untwist your knickers now

DexyDrain

SusieBlue wrote: »

The woman in this case was definitively diagnosed by two independant professionals who assessed her.
There is a big difference between that, and saying Alan Hawe was "likely" suffering from a severe depressive episode, after his death when he couldn't even be evaluated.

Trying to point score saying men have it worse than women because of those two specific cases is in extremely poor taste when they have very little in common.

It’s not in poor taste to compare how psychiatric reports were treated differently in two cases in commentary here and elsewhere. It’s not appropriate to try and shame people for pointing out the glaring inconsistency of people commenting on similar cases.

Firstly, you cannot be diagnosed ‘definitively’ with a non-organic mental disturbance, as pointed out above. Both the Hawe inquest and this court case were trying to determine the culprit’s mental state before and at the time of the crime. How they present afterwards is not reliable enough to say someone was ‘definitively’ suffering psychosis in the past. It’s an opinion. They were both retrospectively disgnosed. In one case it was based on prior medical history, the nature of the crime and the suicide note. In the other it was based on how a person charged with murder, who had killed their own child, presented afterwards and on their medical history.