By now most of you know about the Lindsay Clancy case, but I’ll briefly reiterate it. Clancy, then 32 years old, says she was afflicted with postpartum psychosis after the birth of her youngest child, and in 2023 strangled her three children, eight months old, three years old, and five years old. Then, attempting suicide, she jumped out of a window, managing to paralyze herself from the waist down.
Clancy was tried on three counts of murder and other charges. After a six-week trial, the jury could not agree on a verdict. Apparently 11 jurors voted to find Clancy “not guilty,” which could still lead to years of her confinement in a mental hospital if she was “not criminally resp0nsible” (see below). The prosecution is now deciding whether to re-try her, but her defense attorney has asked Donald Trump to give her a pardon.
The article below from Northeastern Global News (click headline to read) clarifies what an “insanity defense” constitutes in Massachusetts (note that Clancy did not please “not guilty by reason of insanity,” but simply “not guilty.”
An excerpt:
Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.
“In Massachusetts, we don’t typically use the term ‘insanity defense,’” Medwed said, citing the stigma that attaches to the word “insanity.” Instead, it’s referred to as “lack of criminal responsibility.”
. . .Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.
“In Massachusetts, we don’t typically use the term ‘insanity defense,’” Medwed said, citing the stigma that attaches to the word “insanity.” Instead, it’s referred to as “lack of criminal responsibility.”
But what constitues “criminal responsibility”? Psychiatrist Sally Satel answers that in a Free Press article:
Massachusetts uses the McHoul standard for insanity. It allows for a determination of “not criminally responsible” if a person with a mental disorder or defect (which every expert agreed Clancy had) lacks either the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or the capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. If the defendant presents evidence to support her lack of responsibility, the prosecutors bear the burden to prove her responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Some thought the prosecutors did not carry this burden; others thought they did.
My response to this as a hard determinist is that no criminal has the ability to change their mind about whether their conduct be right or wrong, regardless of whether they had a diagnosis of being mentally ill. As I’ve said before, since I don’t believe in retributive punishment, if Clancy did the killings, and is thus physically responsible—which she admitted she was—then there are three reasons to either put her in jail or hospitalize her:
- To deter other people from committing the same act. This is not unthinkable because an Illinois woman, who described herself as being “very invested” in the Clancy case, killed her young son and then unsuccessfully tried to kill herself. It’s possible that if Clancy gets off, it could promote similar “copycat” acts.
- To sequester a dangerous person from society. I’m not sure how dangerous Clancy is. Both her age and her physical condition militate against her having further children, but one could argue, I suppose, that she could harm other people’s children, or constitute a danger in other ways.
- To cure her of her illness. This is manifestly possible, I’m told, but we don’t know how long it will take. However long it takes, that’s how long Clancy should be confined. But the moment that several reputable and objective therapists pronounce her as cured, that’s the moment she should walk free.
At any rate, I’ll take a nonscientific poll here, but regardless of whether or how you answer, I’d appreciate any comments below on what you think could happen to Clancy, even if you didn’t listen to six weeks of evidence. Or tell us your thoughts on this very difficult case.
This is a women’s health issue that remains inadequately studied, and it places every therapist, psychologist, and psychiatrist who treats postpartum patients at real risk of liability. That reality alone tells me this case landed in a courtroom that is simply not equipped to hold the emotional and psychological weight it carries.
As a survivor of domestic abuse myself, I am troubled by inconsistencies in Patrick Clancy’s account. His 911 call describes a conversation with Lindsay, yet first responders reportedly found her unresponsive. Why was he not examined more closely as a potential threat in his own right? It is entirely possible that Lindsay believes she killed the children only because he told her she did.
I am also deeply skeptical of the prosecution’s closing argument. The claim that Lindsay “looked fine and happy” in photographs and videos misunderstands what mental illness actually looks like from the outside. I have worked with many hospitalized and incarcerated people who appeared entirely coherent and composed while carrying an internal landscape of suicidal or homicidal ideation. Appearance tells us almost nothing about what is happening beneath it.
As for a pardon from Donald Trump, I question what purpose it would serve. Lindsay Clancy will live the remainder of her life inside a private hell she can never fully leave, and so will her family incarcerated or hospitalized – no legal outcome changes that.
I don’t know/understand enough about the specific details of the case to have an opinion whether she was in a psychotic state detached from reality. If that is truly the case, then I would say not criminally responsible; otherwise I would say guilty of murder.
Regardless, I completely agree about the three possibilities that you mention at the end, although I am not fully convinced that her conviction would deter a possible copycat. Contagions like this, when happens, may not necessarily happen due to knowing that they might get away. In this regard, I am more concerned about the glorification and moral support Clancy is receiving from some people. The other two points are completely reasonable and they go hand in hand.
I am not sure how I would distinguish “not guilty of murder” from “not criminally responsible for murder”. There is too much reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict.
This is very difficult but if she was/is ill then a hospital is the right place . It’s not the same but the Valdo Calocane case in the UK has some similarities.