By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Wisconsin authorities have requested that a state court revoke the conditional release of Morgan Geyser, who was involved in the 2014 Slender Man stabbing and recently fled a group home. A Waukesha County judge sealed the petition, filed due to Geyser cutting off her GPS bracelet and escaping with a 43-year-old companion, leading to her apprehension near Chicago. Geyser, who did not fight extradition, is currently held in Waukesha County jail pending a hearing, and could be returned to a mental institution and face new charges. The 23-year-old was previously granted conditional release in September.
Read the original article here
Wisconsin seeks to block Morgan Geyser’s conditional release after escape from group home, a situation that has understandably ignited a lot of strong opinions and concerns. It’s really hard to ignore the gravity of the situation, especially when considering the original crime – the attempted murder of a classmate at the behest of a fictional internet character. The fact that she cut off her ankle monitor and fled the state speaks volumes, doesn’t it? It’s a clear indication that she’s not ready for the freedom of conditional release.
The allegations are shocking, painting a picture of someone still very much disconnected from reality. The reported communication with a collector of murder memorabilia, the sketch of a decapitated body, and the postcard expressing a desire for intimacy – these things aren’t just red flags; they’re flashing neon signs of a deeply troubled mind. It’s almost as though she doesn’t understand the repercussions of her actions, or even the basic boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Her actions highlight a significant issue: a lack of sound decision-making skills. The provided narrative suggests she felt unsafe in the group home, which is a valid feeling, but her reaction – fleeing and disabling her monitoring device – was an extreme one. There were avenues available to her, like utilizing the grievance process or seeking help from her case manager or even her mother. It seems that she didn’t consider or follow those procedures, which were likely explained to her upon release. This inability to navigate these processes further calls into question her capacity for making rational decisions, especially when faced with stress or perceived threats.
The whole thing raises questions about whether she’s truly capable of integrating back into society. The comments echo a fear that, without proper care and supervision, she’s a danger to herself and potentially others. The consensus is that any release could very quickly lead to another incident, and the concern is completely understandable. The fact that a judge initially approved her release, despite the opinions of mental health professionals, is deeply unsettling, given the circumstances. It’s a stark reminder that the legal system and the medical profession don’t always align, and the safety of the public often becomes a balancing act.
In Wisconsin, the reaction is even more charged, perhaps because the state is already home to a disturbing history of notoriety when it comes to notorious criminals. The historical context, from serial killers to controversial political figures, provides a backdrop of a state that struggles to process these types of stories. The state of Wisconsin, from this point of view, is seen as accepting of psychopaths.
There’s also a sentiment that the mental health system has failed, that institutions have been dismantled and, as a result, the people who desperately need long-term care are left without the support they need. The argument here is that institutions, while not perfect, provided the structure and care needed for individuals who simply can’t function independently. The debate over whether to incarcerate or treat someone is central to this whole issue. Some believe that prison is the only answer, offering protection to society. Others are more focused on the need for treatment, recognizing that incarceration without care might not address the root of the problem.
There’s talk about the victim, and rightfully so. The victim survived a brutal attack. The impact that this must have on the victim is something that should never be forgotten. The lingering fear and trauma, knowing that the attacker is potentially free, must be a heavy burden to bear. The fact that the victim’s life has been forever altered by the actions of another highlights the urgency of making sure everyone is safe and that justice is served.
The comments also venture into more speculative territory, from the impact of cheese consumption to potential environmental factors like lead contamination and PFAS in the water. These are, of course, exaggerations, but they highlight the deep frustration and search for answers that come with such a complex and troubling case. In any situation like this people are looking to identify the root cause of evil to provide some understanding of what happened, so that they may reconcile it in their minds.
Ultimately, the consensus, considering the severity of the crime and her recent actions, is that the state is justified in seeking to block her release. There’s a clear recognition that she needs ongoing care and supervision, and a fear that allowing her to be free, even under conditional release, is a risk that society can’t afford to take. While the debate over whether it’s jail or mental health institutions is ongoing, it’s clear that Wisconsin, like many communities, is grappling with how to best protect both the individual and the public in cases involving severe mental illness and violent crime.