By John Q. Hosedrinker 
After nearly seven years of treatment at a psychiatric hospital, Morgan Geyser, convicted of attempting to murder her classmate in a Slender Man-inspired attack, will be released. A judge granted her release following testimony from three psychologists who confirmed her significant progress and reduced risk. While acknowledging the severity of the crime, the court determined Geyser has maximized her treatment and poses no further threat to public safety. Her release will be overseen by the state, with Geyser placed in a group home and subject to continued supervision.
Read the original article here
The release of Morgan Geyser, one of the “Slenderman stabbers,” after seven years in a mental institution raises many questions. The statement that she “maximized her treatment options” leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity. Seven years is a significant portion of someone’s young life, especially considering she was just twelve years old at the time of the crime. Spending those formative years, from age fifteen to twenty-two, in an institution is undeniably harsh, regardless of the severity of the offense.
While the actions of Geyser and her accomplice were horrific and inexcusable, it’s difficult to ignore the context of their youth and the presence of severe mental illness. It’s natural to wonder about Geyser’s emotional state following her release. The intense nature of the crime and its lasting impact on the victim, Payton Leutner, cannot be understated. Concerns regarding Geyser’s future behavior are entirely valid, and ongoing, close monitoring appears crucial. Many are hoping she will participate in a structured residential program that provides continuous support for her mental health.
The report that Geyser’s retreat into fantasy has lessened is, paradoxically, both reassuring and unsettling. While reducing this behavior is generally positive, it raises questions about the underlying reasons for its decrease and the stability of her mental health. The fact that she was weaned off antipsychotic medications is also concerning, especially considering her diagnosis of schizophrenia. The possibility of childhood-onset schizophrenia resolving entirely over time isn’t widely known or understood, making this aspect of her release particularly noteworthy.
The conflicting accounts surrounding her release highlight the complexity of the situation. The judge’s denial of Geyser’s third release request just months earlier, citing ongoing risk to the public, directly contradicts the eventual decision to release her. This discrepancy raises concerns about the consistency and thoroughness of the evaluation process. The claims of “impressive progress” made by her treatment team within the last six months seem sudden, especially given the prior judgment of persistent risk.
The length of Geyser’s institutionalization, compared to sentences for other crimes, also fuels debate. The disparity between the relatively short duration of her commitment and the lengthier sentences often given for drug-related offenses or even some cases of violent crime is striking. This fuels widespread speculation about the fairness and consistency of the justice system, particularly when considering factors like mental illness and age. It is worth considering the complexities of applying standard measures of justice to such unusual cases.
Many are hesitant about Geyser’s release, emphasizing the severity of her crime. However, arguments for giving her a second chance are frequently countered with the potential for reoffending. The fact that she almost killed someone, even if young and mentally ill, remains a significant factor. The challenge lies in balancing the need for public safety with the potential for rehabilitation and the possibility that individuals can change. Simply labeling her as “a piece of shit” and dismissing any chance of rehabilitation is counterproductive to efforts toward successful reintegration into society. Research into recidivism shows the importance of providing support and opportunities for positive change rather than condemning individuals to a perpetual cycle of failure.
The concerns surrounding Geyser’s release are further compounded by the unusual circumstances surrounding her diagnosis and treatment. The information available indicates a significant shift in her treatment strategy that warrants close scrutiny. Her history, coupled with the apparent success of altering her treatment plan, is a high-risk, high-reward situation that makes many uncomfortable with the outcome.
Ultimately, Geyser’s release is a complex and controversial event. While her actions were undeniably severe, her age and diagnosed mental illness significantly complicate the situation. The decision reflects a balancing act between public safety and the potential for rehabilitation, a balance many find difficult to accept given the circumstances. The future will tell whether the decision to release her was the right one, but the uncertainty and unease surrounding this outcome are completely understandable.