A Bronx mother who admitted to repeatedly stabbing her 3-year-old and 11-month-old sons and then submerging their bodies in a bathtub at a taxpayer-funded shelter will not go to prison. Twenty-six-year-old Dimone Fleming was found not criminally responsible by Judge Audrey Stone in Bronx Criminal Court on Monday, accepting an insanity plea likely tied to postpartum psychosis or depression.
Fleming had originally been charged with first-degree murder in the deaths of her two children. According to Bronx Assistant District Attorney Tiffany Wichman, who reportedly addressed the court, “Prosecuting mothers does not and cannot prevent these crimes from happening.” That statement has drawn sharp criticism from commentators who argue that aggressive prosecution does deter crime and that the ruling reflects a broader trend of excusing violence against children.
Outrage Over the Ruling
In a blistering opinion piece published by American Thinker, writer Eric Utter condemned the decision, calling the prosecutor’s statement “a lie.” Utter wrote that “aggressively prosecuting criminals of all kinds does lead to less crime,” and lamented what he sees as a cultural shift that sides with murderers over their victims.
Utter’s commentary drew parallels to other high-profile cases, including that of Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children. Utter noted that Clancy could face a lenient outcome from a jury of nine women and three men, and he accused a “teeming throng of pink-clad females” of cheering her on. He argued that if a diagnosis of postpartum psychosis or depression can be used to excuse child murder, then such a diagnosis should be grounds for removing children from the home.
A Cultural Battle Over Accountability
The American Thinker piece goes beyond the specific case, framing the ruling as part of a larger cultural and existential struggle. Utter wrote that “no one is held accountable for anything anymore,” and suggested that society is sliding toward accepting child homicide as a natural extension of legalized abortion. He argued that judgment and accountability are essential for any functioning democratic republic to survive, and he called on “good men” to take action against what he describes as the triumph of evil.
The article also touches on broader political and social grievances, from support for Hamas over Israel to the 1619 Project over the Constitution, suggesting that the Fleming case is symptomatic of a wider rejection of traditional values.
Personal Reflections
Utter, who writes for American Thinker, also shared personal reflections in his piece. He revealed that he is undergoing treatment for cancer that has eliminated his testosterone, and he argued that even when he was younger and full of testosterone, he never once wanted to harm his children. He contrasted his own experience with the excuse of postpartum mental illness, noting that his terminal diagnosis only made him cherish his remaining time with loved ones more.
The author also recalled his own mother’s devotion, writing that she would say, “I wish I could take the illness out of you and put it in me. I hate seeing you so miserable.” He emphasized that both his parents would have died for their children, and he expressed disbelief that some mothers could be excused for killing theirs.
A Call to Action
The piece ends with a call to action, urging readers to recognize that the nation is in an “existential battle for the survival of our nation and its values.” Utter invoked the famous quote often attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” He concluded, “Good men, the proverbial ball is in your court.”
The case of Dimone Fleming has reignited a heated debate over how the justice system handles mothers who commit infanticide, particularly when mental health issues are involved. While some argue that postpartum psychosis should be treated as a mitigating factor, others, like Utter, believe that such rulings undermine the principle of accountability and endanger children.
As the debate continues, the American Thinker piece serves as a stark reminder of the deep divisions in public opinion on this issue. Whether the courts are too lenient or appropriately compassionate remains a question that will likely resonate long after this case fades from headlines.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/murdering-mothers-some-say-meh-some-say-worse/