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

[Joseph Maynor]

In common law in the US there is a principle that one must do or omit to do a voluntary (volitional is a better word) act.  A volitional act is the control of actions or omissions to act.  This means that there are certain exceptions to this rule.  Insanity is one of those.  Fault sometimes is not needed, e.g., in strict liability.  But for most civil and criminal law you need fault or some degree of fault (mens rea).  But if someone does not know what they are doing, these principles are maybe not satisfied.  The insanity defense in criminal law is generally based on this.  

Edited September 17 by Joseph Maynor

[Emerald]

On 9/14/2026 at 5:25 AM, something_else said:

Yea, I agree 100%. There are basically three reasons to incarcerate someone; deterrence, rehabilitation and public protection.

I think prisons should be built primarily around the latter two. Deterrence doesn't really work that well because most criminals typically don't think they're going to get caught anyway.

It ends up being a kind of revenge where criminals suffer to make the victims feel better. Which, while I empathise with it, isn't really something you should build your society or prison system around.

The death sentence falls firmly in the deterrence category. It's just systematic revenge. You could make an argument it was about saving tax payer money for criminals who clearly have zero chance of rehabilitation, which I think is somewhat valid reasoning, but in the end most of them are still imprisoned for 15 years in top security prisons which ends up costing the tax payer a fuck ton of money anyway. So that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

I once heard that the death penalty actually costs more for taxpayers than lifelong incarceration.

Double-check that... as I only heard that once in passing. But I think the source was legitimate.

Those are exactly my thoughts. 

The issue is that people mix-up the concept of justice with the concept of revenge. And those are two different values.

And if the justice system serves the value of revenge, it mission drifts from the actual pursuit of justice. And that's how we end up with the very rudimentary and corrupt justice system we have.

Instead, if we kept our eye on the prize, which is 'public safety' and 'taking away the burdens of freedom away' from murderers and others who use their freedom to commit life-altering violence... then we're actually on-mission.

And I think the justice system that would result from that would be a lot more well-developed and nuanced.

Right now, our justice system basically functions like a trash can that we throw any criminal into... and we mix drug users in with child molesters and killers. And it makes zero sense.

So, I think there should be different types of sub-institutions for different types of crimes.

Like for drug users, they shouldn't have to be locked up at all... or to pay probation. Instead, they should just be required to seek help for the addiction... and have resources given to them.

For small-time drug-dealers, there should be short periods of time at a holding facility with non-violent offenders... where they have to learn about the harm that their drugs cause to people, to try to get them to reconsider what they're doing. And then, of course, mandatory confiscation of their drugs.

For violent non-lethal crimes and more established drug dealers, they should have their own holding facility that's heavily focused on rehabilitation. 

Then, there should be a totally different facility for intentional murderers (excluding manslaughter), rapists, child molesters, and other crimes where the default understanding is life-imprisonment... except in rare cases where there's a clear change in ethos for those who murdered because they were involved in gangs and other things like that.

And these facilities should all be built in a way that is less stimulating with calming colors and is going to be less likely to lead to agitation and conflict... as that's a better environment for rehabilitation and will reduce violence somewhat.

Then, I think most of the budget for the justice department should go to researching the true root causes of specific types of criminal behaviors... and (where possible) to proactively put resources to preventing the external circumstances that are more likely to produce that kind of behavior.

For example, if we know that poverty tends to lead to a greater likelihood of engaging in crimes like theft, drug dealing, and gang violence... then some of the justice resources should go to remedying the issue of poverty.

Right now, because we think about justice and revenge as the same thing... we're only thinking about prison, probation, and fines as the source of justice. But those are just punishments... and they don't actually prevent criminal from committing crimes. They just deter non-criminals.

So, our focus needs to be totally different to actually have an effective justice system that actually optimizes for a safer society.

And the death penalty doesn't belong in that paradigm... unless there is a region where there's literally no maximum security place to keep a dangerous criminal.

[Joseph Maynor]

Each state can craft its own statute as to the insanity defense through the legislature.  

[Basman]

19 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It is if you accept that innocent people will die.

Read my previous comments.

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

You're deeply misunderstanding and strawmannirg my perspective.

I'm not advocating a light sentence at all.

I think that murderers and rapists need to be permanently sequestered away from society (life sentences)... not as a punishment, but as a means of keeping society safe and as a means of taking the burdens of freedom away from the criminal for their own good.

So, I'd say that my perspective is actually a harder line than those who have a more punitive view of justice.

The only exception to the life-sentence rule is if the person shows clear signs of rehabilitation... like a young gang member who kills someone and then genuinely grows past that phase in their lives.

So, I'm advocating for changing the principles that the justice system operates off of by removing an ethos of revenge and punishment.... and instead serving the ACTUAL value of justice as a means of doing the right thing by the victim, the criminal, and society at large.

You could probably release Breivik tomorrow and it would be fine in terms of him not killing anyone anymore, but that would be unacceptable socially and politically when he's a known mass murderer. Justice is not purely a technical question of safety. People expect and want the justice system to deliver a degree of fairness when people commit crimes.

Good luck convincing people otherwise. 

[LordFall]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

Read my previous comments.

You could probably release Breivik tomorrow and it would be fine in terms of him not killing anyone anymore, but that would be unacceptable socially and politically when he's a known mass murderer. Justice is not purely a technical question of safety. People expect and want the justice system to deliver a degree of fairness when people commit crimes.

Good luck convincing people otherwise. 

I'm not a big fan of emotional justice, I don't think it works and the wisdom of the crowd has gotten many innocent people killed. I think AI and a global surveillance state is actually a massive forward for humanity and it will lead to the end of crimes and world peace sometime in the next 30 years. A lot has to change until this is tenable but it seems fundamentally going that way. 

A bit reductionist but it's an interesting perspective in terms of where we are as a species. 

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, Basman said:

Read my previous comments.

You could probably release Breivik tomorrow and it would be fine in terms of him not killing anyone anymore, but that would be unacceptable socially and politically when he's a known mass murderer. Justice is not purely a technical question of safety. People expect and want the justice system to deliver a degree of fairness when people commit crimes.

Good luck convincing people otherwise. 

You're not getting my perspective AT ALL.

I literally said that all murderers should default to life sentences.

So, I don't understand why you're talking about releasing a mass murderer.... as that's the opposite of my perspective. 

What I'm saying is that the philosophy needs to shift behind how we conduct the justice system to where we ONLY focus on justice... and not revenge or punishment. And the death penalty doesn't fit with that philosophy.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

[yetineti]

@LordFall Do Canadian schools include ‘1984’ ‘Anthem’ ‘Brave New World’ ‘Animal Farm’ etc. in their curriculum?

Edited September 18 by yetineti

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

I'm not a big fan of emotional justice, I don't think it works and the wisdom of the crowd has gotten many innocent people killed. I think AI and a global surveillance state is actually a massive forward for humanity and it will lead to the end of crimes and world peace sometime in the next 30 years. A lot has to change until this is tenable but it seems fundamentally going that way. 

A bit reductionist but it's an interesting perspective in terms of where we are as a species. 

Those aren't common patterns in humanity though.

It's very rare that a mom kills her kids.

And it's rare if a man is only interested in grooming himself and not in having sex. Most men are deeply interested in sex.

[yetineti]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Those aren't common patterns in humanity though.

It's very rare that a mom kills her kids.

And it's rare if a man is only interested in grooming himself and not in having sex. Most men are deeply interested in sex.

The other problem is control. The mice did not control their destiny.

Edited September 18 by yetineti

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, yetineti said:

The other problem is control. The mice did not control their destiny.

That's also a good point. 

If humans were put in a situation where agency was completely removed but all necessities were provided, there would probably be some really negative effects of that.

[Carl-Richard]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Those aren't common patterns in humanity though.

It's very rare that a mom kills her kids.

And it's rare if a man is only interested in grooming himself and not in having sex. Most men are deeply interested in sex.

Yup that pic is equivocating reproduction with sex. Clavicular cares a lot about sex. And as if one person represents the rest of society. That's what we call a schizopost.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Basman said:

Read my previous comments.

If you're insinuating I have dementia and I'm not following the discussion and that I should re-read the entire discussion instead of you answering a simple question, I respectfully decline the offer. Do you think the death penalty killing innocent people is acceptable or not?

Edited September 18 by Carl-Richard

[yetineti]

A person’s worldview and values can sometimes shape interesting omissions that would otherwise just be considered odd.

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Those aren't common patterns in humanity though.

It's very rare that a mom kills her kids.

And it's rare if a man is only interested in grooming himself and not in having sex. Most men are deeply interested in sex.

Yes that's why I call it reductionistic. I don't know if this is the thread for it but my real point is how childrearing has stopped being the central pursuit of a lot of men and women and instead social media has connected us globally to the point that farming status is a worthwhile pursuit.

It's truly a deep point to think about and will have massive ramifications on humanity over the next decades.

1 hour ago, yetineti said:

@LordFall Do Canadian schools include ‘1984’ ‘Anthem’ ‘Brave New World’ ‘Animal Farm’ etc. in their curriculum?

Not Brave New World or Animal Farm that I've seen but 1984 yes and to To Kill a Mockingbird also comes to mind. 

[Basman]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you're insinuating I have dementia and I'm not following the discussion and that I should re-read the entire discussion instead of you answering a simple question, I respectfully decline the offer. Do you think the death penalty killing innocent people is acceptable or not?

False dichotomy. 

If you come with some good faith arguments I'll respond seriously.

6 hours ago, Emerald said:

You're not getting my perspective AT ALL.

I literally said that all murderers should default to life sentences.

So, I don't understand why you're talking about releasing a mass murderer.... as that's the opposite of my perspective. 

What I'm saying is that the philosophy needs to shift behind how we conduct the justice system to where we ONLY focus on justice... and not revenge or punishment. And the death penalty doesn't fit with that philosophy.

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

It's still light relative to mass murder or serial rape. And I'm sure there's still room for parole and early release under such a system, like due to crowding or a pandemic. Also, why not just kill them at that point if you have sufficient evidence?

It's not so much about revenge as it is about fairness. Even monkeys understand fairness. And even then, who you are you to say people aren't allowed to want revenge or feel anger about a crime?  Your saying people shouldn't feel upset about a horrible crime. Its again this liberal tendency to empathize more with criminals than victims. Liberals just ignore the whole fairness aspect to make a technocratic argument as if that is not in of itself a partial stand. It quickly becomes very armchairy and ideological in my opinion.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Basman said:

False dichotomy.

I asked "if" that was the case. You're not making it easy when you're not explaining what you mean.

 

10 hours ago, Basman said:

If you come with some good faith arguments I'll respond seriously.

Here is a good faith argument: empirical observations are presumably by all reasonable philosophical inquiry less than 100% certain (we can discuss that if you disagree). Therefore, all legal proceedings are less than 100% certain, and thus all death penalty convictions are less than 100% certain and given enough time will inevitably lead to the death of innocent people. Is this an acceptable risk to you?

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I asked "if" that was the case. You're not making it easy when you're not explaining what you mean.

 

Here is a good faith argument: empirical observations are presumably by all reasonable philosophical inquiry less than 100% certain (we can discuss that if you disagree). Therefore, all legal proceedings are less than 100% certain, and thus all death penalty convictions are less than 100% certain and given enough time will inevitably lead to the death of innocent people. Is this an acceptable risk to you?

If you catch a tape of someone shooting up a school then that is pretty close to 100%. He might as well hold as a sign that says "I did it", but your gonna act like that's not proof enough. Breivik could wear a shirt that says "guilty as bruv" and it wouldn't even substantially change the quality of the evidence. Obviously if there's substantial reasonable doubt, you don't hand out capital willy nilly. Your making up problems.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Basman said:

If you catch a tape of someone shooting up a school then that is pretty close to 100%.

 

Quote

In experiments resembling courtroom CCTV comparisons, innocent-person false matches have been on the order of ~17–33%, sometimes substantially higher for particular images, when ordinary people are asked to identify an unfamiliar person from video.

5.6 Sol summary (link) of "CCTV on Trial: Matching Video Images with the Defendant in the Dock": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224946256_CCTV_on_Trial_Matching_Video_Images_with_the_Defendant_in_the_Dock

And there are real examples of cases where wrongful interpretation of video evidence has lead to wrongful life without parole convictions (rather than death penalty as those states had abolished or de facto abolished the death penalty): for example, https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13464; https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/12431; https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13020.

Anyways, you seem to think it's acceptable in principle when you say "pretty close to 100%", as it would mean that innocent lives would be lost given enough time. But we can keep exploring the numbers just to map out the magnitude. Any other things than "catch a tape of someone" you have in mind?

Edited September 19 by Carl-Richard

[MuadDib]

I want to say that I am not familiar with mental illnesses in any capacity beyond internet meme science, so I am taking Dr K’s expertise at face value. I’m also a man without kids, so I don’t know anything about pregnancy and childbirth. I will loosely summarise the things that stood out to me personally in this discussion and the case in general.

Given my background and biases, when I first heard about the case, my initial reaction was, damn, these bishes acting cRaY, she needs to be locked up for life. Which speaks to one of the first major points Dr K brought up. Men and society don’t fully understand how hard pregnancy and the postpartum can truly be for women.

For the average woman, pregnancy and childbirth are the highest risk activities she will engage in during her life, and the postpartum period is the highest risk period in her life for developing mental illness. So, there is a fundamental misalignment in gender perspective here that is fuelling a culture war outrage on both sides of this equation.

The average man with a newborn child (that he holds so tenderly, preciously and joyfully) can’t fully fathom that there is a reasonably high probability his wife is brooding in the corner with a kitchen knife contemplating ... God knows what. There is also a lot of latent displaced anger towards men from women who have had challenging pregnancies and postpartum periods seeping out in the culture war.

The second point that stood out to me was that although mental health awareness has increased in society, mental health ignorance has also increased. People in general (both men and women) don’t know what conditions like psychosis are beyond vague intimations and generalisations. The confusion about support for Lindsay speaks to this, and the discussions about agency, how she preplanned the murder, etc., also speak to this.

Dr K’s explanation of psychosis was interesting. From what I could gather, agency and control are maintained; it’s just that the underlying assumptions and beliefs about reality are changed. In the mind of a person with psychosis, planning to kill your kids and then doing it in the afternoon can feel just as innocuous as giving your ass an extra wipe after a messy dump. This is different from conditions like command auditory hallucinations where a person doesn’t maintain a sense of agency and feels they must execute an action against their will. This is where the legal interpretation of the children’s deaths remains open, from what I can gather.

The statistics of postpartum psychosis were also interesting. About 3 in 1000 live births will result in postpartum psychosis specifically, so while it’s not common, it’s certainly not unheard of. Of those cases, 5% will result in homicidal ideation, and 6% will result in suicidal ideation. There are about 10,000 live births per day in the USA, so literally every day there are at least a handful of women who experience this exact condition with homocidal connotations, making it completely reasonable that 5000 women would donate money to support her GoFundMe campaign.

There is also a disconnect between people intuitive understanding of the consequences of various mental illness diagnoses and physical illnesses. As Dr K said, if you get a cancer diagnosis, it's easy for regular people to grasp that you have an x% chance of dying over a y period of time. If you are diagnosed with postpartum psychosis however, the same intuitive leap to a 11% chance of suicidal/homicidal ideation with the very real possibility of enactment, isn't made by folks.

There are also discussions about the failures of the medical system being brought up with regard to the second court case, where Lindsay and her husband are suing her care providers. Objectively, she attended two of the best psychiatric hospitals in the country, saw multiple providers over a long period of time, was delivered an ironclad standard of care, yet this was still the outcome. The support she is getting can also be viewed from the perspective of women showing empathy and sympathy, possibly with respect to their own problematic experiences with the healthcare system over time. 17-minute consult times are too short, the non-centralised electronic health care records making communication between providers difficult, and the fact that she called a suicide hotline twice and that information wasn’t available to her providers are all being brought into this discussion.

What is scary for many people (women especially) to consider is that there isn’t really much else she could have done as a regular person to prevent such a tragic outcome, making her support more morally and ethically justifiable to some people.

I feel sorry for the dad; I haven’t heard shit from anyone about what he must be going through, just that he’s either defective in some way or even directly responsible. I wouldn't want to absolve him of responsibility, and it raises an interesting question about what exactly a father's role and duties are in a situation like this. I liked Dr K’s description of “women’s intuition” being a potent force to be respected, but only in the sense that it can detect incongruence about situations and shouldn’t be relied upon too heavily for directionality about the source(s) of incongruence.

Whatever the outcome of the case, there are clear issues with the healthcare system that need to be cognised by the general public, if not resolved. It is a giant system that’s not going to be changed overnight and does deliver some of the best healthcare humans have ever developed at scale; it just can’t be considered a monolith that will solve every problem perfectly. People need to take more responsibility for their own healthcare and be more deeply involved in understanding their own personal situations and managing them accordingly.

Should she be locked up for life? I don’t know. That is for the jury to decide and it seems they are having a hard time doing so. I hope the case won’t inspire sociopathic/psychopathic women to exploit this potential loophole in the future if it turns out she gets sent to a psychiatric institution with the potential to be free again at some point. The true victims are the children, of course and we can't have bishes slaughtering kids out here willy nilly.

For reference, Dr K wasn't my sole source for interpreting the case

• Ana Pych video for a female psychologist's perspective: 
  https://youtu.be/fyBRQURmdO8?si=uc6aezwHw-80Km0V
• Dr Joseph's video for an international psychiatrist's perspective on drug-induced psychosis: https://youtu.be/WUSH0D9LjSA?si=fpTuYhTfg8KJQZ6y

 

 

Edited September 20 by MuadDib

[Basman]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Anyways, you seem to think it's acceptable in principle when you say "pretty close to 100%", as it would mean that innocent lives would be lost given enough time. But we can keep exploring the numbers just to map out the magnitude. Any other things than "catch a tape of someone" you have in mind?

Why would I think that's acceptable? stupid accusation. 

Like, dude. 4k someone shooting people, Columbine style. There are cases where the evidence is overwhelming, but your cherry picking one that supports your point. Zero doubt that Breivik killed massacred people, or Shoko Asahara bio terrorism.

I'm just going to ignore you now. Your just being daft. I've repeated the same point 5 times now. You just can't fathom a generalistic point it seem.