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

[Apparition of Jack]

6 hours ago, LordFall said:

What is the angle against the left? 

She's basically be institutionalized for life there isn't really another plausible outcome. Mistrial is not its gonna end like that. 

You think she was pressured into a trad-wife life and hated it and this was her flip out moment? It makes sense but I can't really wrap my mind around it, seems quite insane. 

 

Look. I can’t say for sure. All the stuff I said is just my own intuition / feelings, so I could be wrong. But it’s hard not to get those vibes from the whole story.

I don’t think she was “pressured”, I just think as a young, white Christian mother that’s what she “expected” life to be like and couldn’t conceive of an alternative. When this suburban dream life turned out to be existentially empty though, she turned to “mental health issues” as a way to cope/find meaning and ended up taking that WAY too far.

Also, I suspect a degree of narcissism / psychopathy in her too. I mean, a mother would have to be to genuinely murder their own kids and make up a whole random story about psychosis etc to do so. There’s genuinely a lot of spiritual rot in “idyllic America” and I feel this case is just a symptom of that. 
 

Again though these are all just my feelings. I could be wrong, although I have time imagining why else she would, you know, strangle her kids to death.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Being institutionalized is not punishment.

Are Norwegian jails punishment?

[Basman]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Are Norwegian jails punishment?

Norwegian jails are fruity as. They have to play games to keep Breivik locked up. 

[LordFall]

Well rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment for punishment's sake right? Punishment as a concept is only really useful for scaring criminals away from crime or perhaps to make the victim's family feel better (even that's a dubious justification) and in this case the victim is the husband that got remarried right away so I don't know if punishing his ex wife does much for him. This woman has to live with what's she done for the rest of her life, that seems punishment enough as long as her psychiatric team is confident she won't hurt anyone else. I think that's why she's getting so much support because people feel her pain and think she's been through enough already. 

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Basman said:

Norwegian jails are fruity as. They have to play games to keep Breivik locked up. 

Being stripped of autonomy is arguably the greatest punishment you could get (which is what jail is). Imagine you're just living your life and one day the government tells you to move to a different country and you are not allowed to leave. People love travelling/moving to other countries, when they are the ones deciding it. People also love solitary confinement when they are the ones deciding it — it's called meditation.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Basman]

I think the west in general is overly soft on crime. Especially when it comes to serious crime. I think murder should lead to capital in most cases. Like the perpetrators feelings are more important than the victim. Won't somebody please think of the child murders feelings?

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Basman said:

I think the west in general is overly soft on crime. Especially when it comes to serious crime. I think murder should lead to capital in most cases. Like the perpetrators feelings are more important than the victim. Won't somebody please think of the child murders feelings?

I think the question should be what creates a functional society, not necessarily whose feelings are hurt or not (although that could be a factor).

[Basman]

30 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Well rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment for punishment's sake right?

No, that's stupid and overly idealistic. With that logic you can kill people and be released again on good behavior. It completely shits on the victims. 21 years is nothing compared to a life. It's a joke. 

This liberal compassion undermines the victims of serious crime.

[Carl-Richard]

@Basman Genuine question: Do you think a sense of retribution for the victims is necessary for a functional society? I discussed this with a youth politician once, and he seemed to hint that it was, probably while hinting to Breivik.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Apparition of Jack]

49 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Well rehabilitation is the goal, not punishment for punishment's sake right? Punishment as a concept is only really useful for scaring criminals away from crime or perhaps to make the victim's family feel better (even that's a dubious justification) and in this case the victim is the husband that got remarried right away so I don't know if punishing his ex wife does much for him. This woman has to live with what's she done for the rest of her life, that seems punishment enough as long as her psychiatric team is confident she won't hurt anyone else. I think that's why she's getting so much support because people feel her pain and think she's been through enough already. 

I don’t think she’s repentant. Not truly, anyway. She (and too many of her supporters) seems to have treated her kids like a “minor annoyance” that “maybe should’ve been treated better” but the fact they’re gone isn’t a big deal, rather than, you know, actual humans with full lives ahead of them. 
 

Kids arent playthings. They’re not Lego sets or washing machines. They’re growing young people who deserve love and protection. She broke that sacred trust yet barely gives a fuck, and if she’s rewarded (ie not convicted) that sets a terrible precedent. That’s why I believe she deserves to be punished.

Edited 1 hour ago by Apparition of Jack

[Basman]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think the question should be what creates a functional society, not necessarily whose feelings are hurt or not (although that could be a factor).

Technocratic delusion. The world operates on feelings and intuition. You don't want to live next door to a child murderer.

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Genuine question: Do you think a sense of retribution for the victims is necessary for a functional society (today)? I discussed this with a youth politician once, and he seemed to hint that it was, probably while hinting to Breivik.

You don't want Breivik to be your children's school teacher. 

Releasing him after 10-20 years on good behavior is completely unacceptable, even if technically he'll never kill again. The community themselves will kill him. He would get curb stomped at Majorstuen station by a drunk bearded middle-aged man 

[LordFall]

22 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

I don’t think she’s repentant. Not truly, anyway. She (and too many of her supporters) seems to have treated her kids like a “minor annoyance” that “maybe should’ve been treated better” but the fact they’re gone isn’t a big deal, rather than, you know, actual humans with full lives ahead of them. 
 

Kids arent playthings. They’re not Lego sets or washing machines. They’re growing young people who deserve love and protection. She broke that sacred trust yet barely gives a fuck, and if she’s rewarded (ie not convicted) that sets a terrible precedent. That’s why I believe she deserves to be punished.

How do you know she's not repentant? I imagine that if you had killed your own kids that would shatter your psyche in all kinds of ways that would leave you pretty emotionless and not seeming like a normal person to others.

32 minutes ago, Basman said:

No, that's stupid and overly idealistic. With that logic you can kill people and be released again on good behavior. It completely shits on the victims. 21 years is nothing compared to a life. It's a joke. 

This liberal compassion undermines the victims of serious crime.

They do release murderers after they've served their sentences. What would you do then capital punishment for anyone that kills someone?

I think we moved away from the death sentence and that's led to a generally better society.

What goal do you aim to accomplish by further punishment of the murderers if the goal of rehabilitation has already been achieved? Do you have compassion for the perpetrators or only the victims? 

It is an important discussion to have. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Carl-Richard]

56 minutes ago, Basman said:

Technocratic delusion. The world operates on feelings and intuition. You don't want to live next door to a child murderer.

Feelings and intuition are counted in "functional". It's just the equation is also larger.

 

56 minutes ago, Basman said:

You don't want Breivik to be your children's school teacher. 

Releasing him after 10-20 years on good behavior is completely unacceptable, even if technically he'll never kill again. The community themselves will kill him. He would get curb stomped at Majorstuen station by a drunk bearded middle-aged man 

There is that and then there is the "feeling" of living in a society that you know can take your life if it so decides (is that a good feeling or not?). And the fact that executioners suffer terrible rates of PTSD. 

There is also an ironic catch-22: the only people you would want as executioners would be extreme psychopaths or serial killers (people who take pleasure in or are completely fine with killing people), but you'll of course end up executing a lot of those people instead of giving them a job as executioners.

Edited 37 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Apparition of Jack]

22 minutes ago, LordFall said:

How do you know she's not repentant? I imagine that if you had killed your own kids that would shatter your psyche in all kinds of ways that would leave you pretty emotionless and not seeming like a normal person to others.

I mean, the fact that I believe she didn’t experience pyschosis and instead made that up as a sob story tells me she’s a bullshit artist and probably good at hiding her true feelings / emotions. If anything I feel like she could be lying to herself.

Of course, she may have randomly had a freak psychotic episode (almost never happens) where she was lucid enough to hunt down her kids one by one then only told her psychiatrist two weeks AFTER the fact, in which case I’d be wrong. But my bullshit meter doesn’t buy that. I still think she knowingly did it and barely regrets it.

Edited 54 minutes ago by Apparition of Jack

[LordFall]

36 minutes ago, Basman said:

You don't want Breivik to be your children's school teacher.

Not particularly but I don't think he'll be allowed to work with children so that's a non-factor.

Also there is a concept for this : Recidivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

Criminology is a deeply studied field that makes up the foundation of the most western legal systems around the world. Blind revenge doesn't do much good. 

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Feelings and intuition are counted in "functional". It's just the equation is also larger.

 

There is that and then there is the "feeling" of living in a society that you know can take your life if it so decides (is that a good feeling or not?). And the fact that executioners suffer terrible rates of PTSD.

Don't worry AI is coming soon to spare us the execution! Knowing that your society is anti death and violence is a good point too though on a serious note. I do seriously believe that wars themselves will leave humanity in the next 20-30 years after we figure out global AI policing. 

1 minute ago, Apparition of Jack said:

I mean, the fact that I believe she didn’t experience pyschosis and instead made that up as a sob story tells me she’s a bullshit artist and probably good at hiding her true feelings / emotions. If anything I feel like she could be lying to herself.

Of course, she may have randomly had a freak psychotic episode (almost never happens) where she was lucid enough to hunt down her kids one by one then only tell her psychiatrist two weeks AFTER the fact, in which case I’d be wrong. But my bullshit meter doesn’t buy that. I still think she knowingly did it and barely regrets it.

Psychosis is hard to understand man. The fact that she sent her husband away beforehand is pretty damning though. Didn't the prosecution obviously highlight that fact? What was the defence's reply? 

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Don't worry AI is coming soon to spare us the execution!

Somebody has to write the name and date in the AI execution prompt. Somebody has to lead the prisoner to the execution chamber. Unless you're in the singularity, in which case probably most crime and social ills will evaporate anyway (either benevolently or violently).

Edited 44 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Apparition of Jack]

11 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Not particularly but I don't think he'll be allowed to work with children so that's a non-factor.

Also there is a concept for this : Recidivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

Criminology is a deeply studied field that makes up the foundation of the most western legal systems around the world. Blind revenge doesn't do much good. 

Don't worry AI is coming soon to spare us the execution! Knowing that your society is anti death and violence is a good point too though on a serious note. I do seriously believe that wars themselves will leave humanity in the next 20-30 years after we figure out global AI policing. 

Psychosis is hard to understand man. The fact that she sent her husband away beforehand is pretty damning though. Didn't the prosecution obviously highlight that fact? What was the defence's reply? 

I get psychosis is hard. Hell I myself have blacked out during really bad mental health episodes. I’ve known people all throughout my life who dealt with severe mental health issues (depression, schizophrenia, suicidal ideation etc) so I get it can be complicated. 
 

The thing is, I just don’t buy her story. She had depression and anxiety yes, but none of her psychologists ever said she displayed signs of psychosis, and the fact that she only experienced it ONCE and never again is a huge red flag to me.
 

Plus, her description of it doesn’t match what usually happens. She was smart enough to take her children one by one to a separate room and kill them. One of them ran away and she managed to chase him down. She called her husband, calmly, and asked him to pick up more medication IN BETWEEN killing her kids. People in a psychotic episode tend be way more unhinged and helpless and more a danger to themselves than to anyone else. If this truly was a psychotic break, she would more likely be found in the bathroom covered in wine and medications instead of, you know, carefully planning out her kid’s death.

Again this is all just speculation on my part. I don’t want to be an authority or overlook key evidence or whatever. But my layman’s understanding of the case makes me feel her story is complete nonsense and she’s just trying to avoid accountability for her actions.

 

EDIT: As for why the prosecution hasnt proven sanity yet, its because they’re trying to but for some reason Massachusetts has a law where it’s on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt of sanity, instead of on the defendant to prove insanity. It feels backwards to me but who knows.

Edited 41 minutes ago by Apparition of Jack