Lindsay Clancy -Mother of 3 kills her kids during psychotic episode

[Joshe]

If you strangle your kids, you’re psychologically diseased. Doesn’t matter if it’s involuntary psychosis, OCPD, or just total conscious selfishness. Premeditated murder = sick in the head. Do you have any idea how dumb and fucked in the head you gotta be to plan the murder of your 3 kids? To ideate on that until you actually act on it, means your psychology is severely compromised, even if you're aware of and nurture the thoughts. 

Justice here is tragic, yet necessary. IMO, she should be locked away for the rest of her life, even if she was suffering a psychotic break. Society can't risk showing mercy to child-killers. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Joshe

[Basman]

7 hours ago, Thought Art said:

Fair, but like Leo says state is everything. Just a few things go wrong and you’d be a different person, maybe even insane. 
 

She was experiencing a long bout of chemical induced imbalance and toxicity to her brain and nervous system. She was given various pill. This brought with it and eventually coincided with long bout of sleeplessness. It also brought deep suffering depression, anxiety, confusion.  It’s very possible for all this to lead to a psychotic break where he feels she has to kill her and her family. There appears to be a long list of evidence of her challenges with the medications. I’ve seen people in documentaries talking about how those medications caussed a young girl to have the same kind of hullicinations and voices telling her to harm herself and others. But, she was lucky when her parents stopped all medications unlike the doctors who kept pushing them. 
 

It’s sad but what happened to her here is, to me, a string of various doctors not recognizing the patient was experiencing damage from the meditation and needed to stop. I can see a strong case for her. 
 

She had no history of depression or paranoia or anything before the medications. Her husband stands by her. 

That doesn't necesarilly rule out that she knew what she was doing. She sent out her husband and would spend 5-8 minutes each strangling her kids to death. 

She was definitely crazy, but I'm not convinced her controller was unplugged. Even if it was she deserves punishment. You don't cross a certain line. 

[Thought Art]

@Basman You can’t imagine how deceiving psychosis can be from drugs and lack of sleep. 
 

@Joshe She had no history of mental illness prior to medication though, basically. 
 

You may at society can’t risk child killers, I say that’s true. But, furthermore it can’t risk medical malpractice which ruins and distorts people’s minds. We have long history of science now with these medications and we know they can make people crazy. We have science. We can’t ignore that due to moral outrage without understanding why it happened. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Thought Art

[Basman]

7 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Basman You can’t imagine how deceiving psychosis can be from drugs and lack of sleep. 
 

@Joshe She had no history of mental illness prior to medication though, basically. 
 

You may at society can’t risk child killers, I say that’s true. But, furthermore it can’t risk medical malpractice which ruins and distorts people’s minds. We have long history of science now with these medications and we know they can make people crazy. We have science. We can’t ignore that due to moral outrage without understanding why it happened. 

There's no disputing that she was crazy, but that doesn't prove that she didn't know what she was doing beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Thought Art]

@Basman Well, we will see what the trial decides. She has a strong case. 
 

Personally I am biased toward blame  the doctors for malpractice. She and her husband have done what they could by keeping asking for help. She told others she had thoughts of harming herself and the kids. More should have been done, imo. 

Our sanity isn’t a given. It can be distorted. 

When people die like kids we struggle as humans to realize how complex the situation can be and we tend to moralize. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Thought Art

[Stick]

I expected better from lefties.
Supporting a child killer cause shes insane
Yea most people who kill thier own children are prolly fucking insane. That should't make you dodge a prison sentence. 

[Elliott]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The incels and pick me girl's are foaming at the mouth over this witch burning. People like to point at Hitler or Stahlin as some anomaly, but look at the evil in this thread TODAY, these people would burn jews in ovens, evil, they want to kill a woman in cold blood. From all this viral vitriole from you credents I fully expect after her not-guilty ruling for some vigilante to kill her or for her to commit suicide, that's on you guys, sit with that. Stochastic homicide/attempted murder, straight to hell.... murder.

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Stick said:

I expected better from lefties.
Supporting a child killer cause shes insane
Yea most people who kill thier own children are prolly fucking insane. That should't make you dodge a prison sentence. 

Imagine if you were just living your life and then somebody spiked your drink with some ridiculous dose of amphetamine and you go into a psychotic state where you end up killing somebody as a result (the police even heard you shouting "they are evil, I must find out a way to kill them; aha! — a knife", implying there was planning involved). Should you be jailed for that?

[Stick]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine if you were just living your life and then somebody spiked your drink with some ridiculous dose of amphetamine and you go into a psychotic state where you end up killing somebody as a result (the police even heard you shouting "they are evil, I must find out a way to kill them; aha! — a knife", implying there was planning involved). Should you be jailed for that?

wait, she was drugged? 
if she was I think that she should prolly have a shorter sentence and counseling.
if she wasn't and had her own natural high then isn't that what all murderers have? 
Should we let out all killers cause they are insane and didnt really 'mean' to do it?

Also if you are aruging that her surrounding manupulated her into doing it then isnt that the same with all crimes??
Every criminal was once a baby raised by their surrounding to inflict suffering on others.
Of course I agree that the fundamental solution is to create better surrounding not a more harsh prison.
But we need to be practical.

We would'nt even have this argument if it was a man who did it. 


(Apparantly she wasnt drugged)
https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/lindsay-clancy-trial-toxicology-expert-testifies-drug-levels/story?id=135394092

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

From all this viral vitriole from you credents I fully expect after her not-guilty ruling for some vigilante to kill her or for her to commit suicide, that's on you guys, sit with that.

If you believe her story, then you know she already attempted suicide. When you live with images of strangling your own kids, that would move you into suicidal ideation. So if she does commit suicide, that would be the main contributing factor - the images/memories of what she has done and daily living in the world she created where she killed her kids and jumped out a window to paralysis. Maximum societal shame is second to that. 

Imagine if all the details were the same but instead killing her own children, she killed someone else’s. Would empathy be lower and punishment easier to dole out? If so, what does that say?

 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Stick said:

wait, she was drugged? 
 

YAAA

like 30 psychotic medications

 

You're arguing 1. She wasn't psychotic

And 2. She wasn't drugged

Then why was she prescribed so many anti-psychotic medications by so many doctors and how are they not "drugging", how are drugs that directly change your psychology not drugging?

At least stay consistent with your accusations....

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, Joshe said:

Would empathy be lower and punishment easier to dole out? If so, what does that say?

 

No

The barrier is whether she's faking psychosis or not. It's possible, prosecution should prove it, because defense proved she was psychotic.

You people are admitting your biases in your questions.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

The incels and pick me girl's are foaming at the mouth over this witch burning. People like to point at Hitler or Stahlin as some anomaly, but look at the evil in this thread TODAY, these people would burn jews in ovens, evil, they want to kill a woman in cold blood. From all this viral vitriole from you credents I fully expect after her not-guilty ruling for some vigilante to kill her or for her to commit suicide, that's on you guys, sit with that. Stochastic homicide/attempted murder, straight to hell.... murder.

Too much emotion... and too many ad hominem attacks.

You're comparing the people in the thread who don't believe that Lindsay Clancy was in psychosis when she murdered her kids to Hitler... when that's a totally reasonable conclusion to come to.

I could flip it around and claim that you're evil and that support all child killers. But I'm not doing that.

Realistically, I just perceive you as a bit naive and too emotionally invested in seeing Lindsay Clancy as innocent. And I think you could be caught up in mob mentality about it, as it's a very polarizing public court case where people are turning it into a "man vs woman" thing.

But I was never vitriolic towards Lindsay Clancy. I just honestly think she's guilty. To me, that just seems like the "duh" option.

And I haven't seen any evidence that's compelling enough to me to change my mind.

[Elliott]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

 

And I haven't seen any evidence that's compelling enough to me to change my mind.

Because you refuse to look at it because you're purely emotional, you've literally given ZERO evidence and only 100%made up in your head narratives all while making obviously envious comments about the suspect. Your first comment was that you knew no details just hearsay from your friend and you already had your verdict, LMAO, all while oddly commenting on her good looks and lifestyle

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Because you refuse to look at it because you're purely emotional, you've literally given ZERO evidence and only 100%made up narratives in your head all while making obviously envious comments about the suspect.

That's very random to assume that I'm envious of her. 

Is it just because I'm a woman who thinks she's guilty? If so, that's incredibly sexist, and you should be mindful of your biases and assumptions about women, and how they're peppering your perception of this case.

I'm aware of the details of the case. And to me, it reads like she's guilty and killed her children knowingly from a clear state of mind.

Why do you believe that she's innocent?

[Elliott]

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Stick said:

wait, she was drugged? 
if she was I think that she should prolly have a shorter sentence and counseling.

I was simply testing your position that you should be punished for things you did in a psychosis.

Why is an exogenous cause more forgivable than an endogenous cause? Let's assume she got a brain hemorrhage instead (no seeming external cause) and that seemed to cause her behavior. Would that change anything for you?

 

4 hours ago, Stick said:

if she wasn't and had her own natural high then isn't that what all murderers have? 
Should we let out all killers cause they are insane and didnt really 'mean' to do it?

The point of an insanity defense in the case of claimed acute psychosis is that the intentions and actions in the psychotic state do not represent the intentions of the person in the normal state. And that if we assume the person will not become psychotic in the future (which may or may not be likely), we should expect the person would not have such intentions or act on them.

And if we think they are likely to enter such a psychotic state in the future (or they are currently psychotic), then we've decided that it's best to try to treat the problem with psychiatry (meanwhile non-psychotic anti-social behavior is notoriously hard to "treat" if they even are treatable).

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I was simply testing your position that you should be punished for things you did in a psychosis.

Why is an exogenous cause more forgivable than an endogenous cause? Let's assume she got a brain hemorrhage instead (no seeming external cause) and that seemed to cause her behavior. Would that change anything for you?

 

The point of an insanity defense in the case of claimed acute psychosis is that the intentions and actions in the psychotic state do not represent the intentions of the person in the normal state. And that if we assume the person will not become psychotic in the future (which may or may not be likely), we should expect the person would not have such intentions or act on them.

And if we think they are likely to enter such a psychotic state in the future (or they are currently psychotic), then we've decided that it's best to try to treat the problem with psychiatry (meanwhile non-psychotic anti-social behavior is notoriously hard to "treat" if they even are treatable).

Justice isn't only for the person on trial. This almost reads like you care more about the perpetrator than the victims.

[Elliott]

18 minutes ago, Basman said:

Justice isn't only for the person on trial. This almost reads like you care more about the perpetrator than the victims.

Think of how stupid your comment is. Imagine your mom did this out of a psychotic break, you want her killed for it? Crackhead, you're sadistic. 

Edited 48 minutes ago by Elliott

[Joshe]

Learning a bit:

Automatism — Acting without conscious control: sleepwalking, seizures, certain drug reactions. The body performed the act; nobody was driving. Legally distinct from insanity — automatism says there was no voluntary act at all, which is a complete defense leading to walking free. Insanity says a diseased mind produced the act, which leads to a hospital. 

Intruder theory — The idea underlying the insanity and automatism defenses: the person who committed the act was not, in the relevant sense, the person. A psychotic episode, seizure, or sleepwalking state is treated like a temporary intruder operating the body — so punishing the normal self for the intruder's act is punishing someone for another entity's crime. The whole legal fight is over two questions the theory can't answer by itself: how do you prove the intruder was real, and how sealed off from the normal self was it — especially when the normal self had months of warning that an intruder was forming.

NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity) — The verdict that says: you did it, but the law can't blame you for it. Not a release — it routes you to indefinite psychiatric commitment, often longer than the prison sentence would've been. Massachusetts calls it "lack of criminal responsibility" because it avoids the word insanity.

M'Naghten test — The older, narrower insanity standard (from an 1843 English assassination case): did a mental disease prevent you from knowing what you were doing, or knowing it was wrong? Purely cognitive — if you knew, you're guilty, no matter how little control you had. Texas used this on Andrea Yates: she knew drowning her kids was illegal, so jury #1 convicted, even though she believed she was saving them from Satan.

Model Penal Code test — The broader, modern standard (Massachusetts uses it): did mental disease strip your substantial capacity to either appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct or conform your conduct to the law? That second half — the volitional prong — is the big difference: it acquits people who knew it was wrong but had lost the ability to stop. Federal law deleted the volitional prong after Hinckley shot Reagan. Massachusetts kept it. Clancy gets two doors where a federal defendant gets one.

Mens rea — "Guilty mind." The mental-state ingredient of a crime. Almost every crime = a bad act plus a culpable mental state; kill someone with neither intent nor recklessness and you may have committed no crime at all. The entire insanity debate is a fight over what happens when the mind that formed the intent was broken.

Actus reus — "Guilty act" — the physical half. Must be voluntary. This is automatism's hook: a sleepwalker's strangling isn't a voluntary act, so the crime is missing an ingredient before you even reach the mind.

Affirmative defense — A defense that says "even if I did everything charged, here's why I'm still not liable" — self-defense, duress, insanity in most states. Matters because whoever raises it usually has to prove it. Most states make defendants prove insanity. Massachusetts flipped this: once raised, the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of proof — Who loses when nobody can tell. That's the real function: it decides undecidable cases. Same deadlocked-in-the-middle jury convicts in Texas and acquits in Massachusetts purely because the burden points different directions. In an insanity trial about an unmeasurable interior, the burden placement basically is the ruling.

Last voluntary act doctrine (Decina rule) — Culpability transfers backward to the last moment you had control and knowledge. The seizure wasn't the crime; getting in the car was. Kills the "but I was unconscious" defense whenever a lucid earlier-you knowingly deployed a dangerous later-you: driving with untreated epilepsy, drinking yourself into a blackout, taking a fourth Ambien after three prior sleepwalking episodes.

Malingering — Faking or exaggerating symptoms for legal benefit. The clinical term for "playing crazy." Forensic psychiatrists run structured tests for it, and prosecutors argue it constantly — it's the technical name for the exact suspicion driving the "she went to doctors for plausible deniability" read.

Hung jury / mistrial — No unanimous verdict either way = no verdict at all. Not an acquittal — the state can retry from scratch, because double jeopardy only attaches to actual verdicts. An 11–1 for acquittal and an 11–1 for conviction produce the identical legal nothing.

Dynamite charge (Allen charge) — The instruction a judge reads to a deadlocked jury, formally asking the minority jurors to reconsider whether their doubt is reasonable given that colleagues disagree. Named for what it's designed to do to holdouts. Some states ban it as coercive; Massachusetts uses a softened version (Tuey-Rodriquez).

Information cascade — When people can see others' choices before making their own, early choices snowball and the group converges on whatever started the chain — independent judgment dies. Why "Ask the Audience" (simultaneous, private keypads) hits ~91% while a jury room (sequential, public, pressured) manufactures agreement instead of measuring it.

Condorcet jury theorem — 1785 math: if each voter is even slightly better than a coin flip and votes independently, the majority of a large group approaches infallibility. The catch is independence — deliberation destroys it. The theorem is the reason a crowd of amateurs beats one expert on the game show, and the reason twelve jurors influencing each other are epistemically fewer than twelve people.

Edited 27 minutes ago by Joshe