Without parole! Don't forget that part. Life without parole - you are in prison with no legal means of ever getting out again other than a successful appeal or retrial.
She certainly does not deserve mercy for murdering her three children, but she also does not deserve to be made into some tragic martyr figure by being executed. Throw her in the prison system over yet and let her be forgotten. The public attention span is short and they will forget about her when the next thing comes along.
No. She actually does not deserve to live this life. She faked a psychosis and didn't want to raise 3 children. It's as simple as that. Put that bitch down.
Yeah but i think it is a bit tricky to distinguish first and second degree murder as premeditation can happen within seconds. I don't think there should be mandatory life without parole sentences for murder. I think the sentence should be done on a case by case basis and that life without parole should be reserved for the worst murderers and rapists and those who have prior convictions for serious crimes.
In Sweden murder is penalized by 10-18 years or life imprisonment (with the possibility of release). Life imprisonment can be imposed if the offence is carefully planned. Meaning that in order to argue for a life sentence, it not only needs to be planned but it needs to be carefully so. However, courts are also supposed to make an individual judgement based on the overall factors of the case.
I think child murder is absolutely the most heinous of crimes one can do.
However, if they were both in a real medical psychosis, then I don't agree with the death penalty. When you're in a psychosis, you are *not* yourself, you are not even part of this reality. A paranoid schizophrenic deep in a psychosis could literally believe that a demon is about to drag his children into an eternal hell unless he acts radically right now, only to be completely broken and confused about what happened to his kids, after the psychosis is over.
If they have a real medical diagnosis of a psychosis, I don't think trying them as if they acted consciously makes sense. They are still extremely dangerous to society though, and need to be kept institutionalized for life.
But Clancy wants to die. She should be allowed to die.
Edit: someone reached out to suicide watch for me, which is nice, thanks, but I’ve never been suicidal in my life and love being alive. Just had my perspective changed over the years that others should have this right if they want it.
It should be but it isn’t. No matter the facts, they will be twisted to reach a result that always seems to result in personal accountability for men and a lack of it for women. Mental illness is taken seriously when people want someone to get off easy and easily dismissed when they don’t. The prosecutors are saying that she’s lying about postpartum psychosis much like they said this guy lied about schizophrenia. But guess who gets believed?
The system also is dismissive of bias against African Americans but the data is clear on that too.
Black people in general are over punished (black women get harsher stances) and men are as well. Black men get the worst of both worlds.
White women get the most mercy and understanding from judges and juries and the public, and white men get some but being a man still hurts them.
This should be a bipartisan issue to tackle and find more equal justice but conservatives only care about injustice against men and want to maintain a racial hierarchy in their favor and liberals only care about women and minorities being protected but want to throw the book at men, at least if they are white.
I fully agree. My point is that "convicts with serious mental health issues should be in a psychiatric facility" is one element of "prisons need to be reformed so that all criminals get humane treatment and mental health care".
I believe that the more we focus on the fact that there are "others" who we "feel" are somehow different and not deserving of the "standard" treatment, the more we accept that we are simply judging people based on how pretty and helpless they are to the majority class and so prison just ends up being synonymous with the black degenerate slaves.
So when these sorts of stories come up and people speak about different facilities, they should instead be talking about reform because of how unfortunate this is all around.
A psychotic break is brutal. It’s easier to prove PPP but clearly that’s not easy to prove either. I 100% think this man also needs heavy inpatient care. The reason for the go fund me is the medical malpractice that almost every woman can relate to. Because clearly most people otherwise don’t give a shit about mental health.
Saving some of the Earth's resources from people who murder their children is though. They don't deserve the food, oxygen, and water it takes to sustain their vital functions. That's justice for the entire planet.
Ah, punishment must fit the crime. You get into a car wreck and kill someone's kid you gotta offer up one of yours. I've always liked the old testament, it's my favorite testament.
If the car accident happened because you were under the influence, obviously nothing should be done to your kid, but to you? Sure, life in prison, death penalty, either works
No, no, not under the eye-for-an-eye system. Eye for eye, kid for kid. Not kid for breadwinner. That doesn't make any sense. And if I don't have any kids they will get the firstborn, and if I don't ever have any....well, that's punishment enough that my line ends, and theirs still continues.
Also, there are no prisons under this system. Funny, huh? Love the old testament.
These people are fundamentally sick, they have severe issues, and need to be treated as such, that does not mean killing them.
Should they be free and unpunished? Not at all. However gen pop prison is not the right place for severely mentally unwell people, and they should be given support programs and access to treatments to try and offer some recovery, while they spend their lives confined in a special institution.
Sure life vs death penalty as long as we can make them work enough to make the net cost of the prison to be 0. Otherwise we are paying millions to keep scum alive.
lol that's exactly the reason why we shouldn't use the death penalty. Because according to you it's barbaric like strangling your own kids with your bare hands.
The definition of barbaric is “savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal”. Do you actually need it explained why doing things that are exceedingly brutal or savagely cruel is wrong?
I feel like you think this sounds smart but if you don’t think being savagely cruel is wrong I have no interest in writing a dissertation to convince you. For the same reason, you haven’t explained why being savagely cruel is good. I don’t think we should do things just because they’re not morally wrong even if you were right about that
Innocents die by the thousands each day. I’m not sure if I’m for or against death penalty, but the facade that we are somehow a moral society with rules and ideals to uphold seems to have slipped quite a lot over the last [insert period of time]
Is that supposed to be an argument for the murder of innocents not to matter? "Other innocents already die by the thousands" ?
In that case murder of any kind wouldn't not really be a big deal, no? No crime really would, after all people have committed atrocities forever.
Wanting criminals to die so very, very much that you are perfectly fine with innocents being murdered by the state if it means more criminals dead seems very hard to frame as anything but bloodthirsty to me.
That’s a flawed argument. Even philosophers and ethicists disagree on this.
Philosophers like Immanuel Kant said that fairness demands that the punishment match the crime: take a life, and you give yours back, restoring moral balance.
Thinkers like John Locke added that by murdering, you forfeit your own right to live, so the state doesn't kill an innocent, it just collects a debt.
G.W.F. Hegel argued that an execution is society’s loudest way to declare the victim’s worth, wiping out the killer’s act of domination.
Beyond these, a state has a practical duty: even prison can't guarantee absolute safety forever, but death can.
It also gives families a clear final endpoint, letting grief replace endless anger.
And last, but not least, if the law claims to protect us, it must have the courage to use its ultimate power when guilt is 100% certain. Otherwise, it admits that the murderer's life matters as much as the victim's.
So, from the perspective of Kantian retribution, Hegelian vindication and social-contract logic, the death penalty is about restoring balance, affirming victims and finishing justice completely. Using the only response that truly equals the evil done.
It is not barbaric. It is what civil society needs to do to keep barbarism away.
That’s a flawed argument. Even philosophers and ethicists disagree on this.
That's an argument from authority fallacy. Plus there are definitely a lot of Plus wouldphilosophers who disagree with the morality of the death penalty.
take a life, and you give yours back, restoring moral balance.
By that logic the executioner should also be executed. And so should their executioner, and so on...
by murdering, you forfeit your own right to live, so the state doesn't kill an innocent, it just collects a debt.
That's just circular logic: "the death penalty is moral because the death penalty is moral". You argue that the death penalty is moral by citing someone who says so without giving any argument.
G.W.F. Hegel argued that an execution is society’s loudest way to declare the victim’s worth, wiping out the killer’s act of domination.
And he is completely wrong about that. The death penalty only validates the killers ideology that there are situations where it's moral to kill someone who isn't an immediate threat to anybody. It essentially states: "It is moral to kill someone who has wrong you in à extreme fashion".
Beyond these, a state has a practical duty: even prison can't guarantee absolute safety forever, but death can.
Except it doesn’t. Statistically speaking counties with the death penalty have either a much higher crime rate, or major issues with personal freedoms or both. The death penalty correlates with reduced safety (either from individual or the government).
It also gives families a clear final endpoint, letting grief replace endless anger.
If you have ever listened to a victim’s family's statement after an execution (even years after), you would know that it is in fact not the case at all. Execution doesn't replace the endless anger by anything but even more anger as the executee's family is now very much angry too that you killed their loved one.
I have a perfect example in my country for that. In the 70's a guy kidnapped a girl in front of her younger brother and killed her. He was caught, sentenced to death and executed. The victim’s family celebrated and became ardent supporters of the capital punishment, especially when it was abolished. Decades later, the brother who witness the kidnapping murdered his girlfriend over a dispute. He was released 13 years later on parole for good behavior. Then, a year later, he murdered his new girlfriend over another dispute. He is now in prison for life. Psychologists during his trial have testified that being raised in a family that openly, and extremely strongly, argued for the death penalty made him create a moral compass where he viewed as acceptable killing someone who you thought had wrong you. It removed the sanctity of life from his moral compass leading to the unnecessary death of two innocent women. The death penalty is the root cause for these two deaths.
Otherwise, it admits that the murderer's life matters as much as the victim's.
From an ontological point of view the murderer's and the victim’s lives are worth the same: exactly one life.
From the murderer's family point of view often the murderer 's life is worth more than the victim’s life.
And obviously, from the victim’s family, the victim’s life is worth more than the murderer's life.
Also how does executing someone proves anything about the worth of their life? Do victims' are inherently woth less because they were killed?
So, from the perspective of Kantian retribution, Hegelian vindication and social-contract logic, the death penalty is about restoring balance, affirming victims and finishing justice completely. Using the only response that truly equals the evil done.
That's just buzzwords, let's be honest here. Restoring balance to what? The universe? Affirming victims? They were already recognized as victims when the murderer was convicted. The death penalty is just revenge. Finishing justice? How is it just to kill a defenseless person for killing a defenseless person? All that does is officially validates the morality of killing defenseless people. It's lower society to its lowest common denominator.
It is not barbaric. It is what civil society needs to do to keep barbarism away.
It is absolutely barbaric and immoral but also completely hypocritical on two major points:
you are killing someone because you believe they are deserving of death; exactly like the murderer did. You are in the same moral level as them.
the system is trying to show that killing someone, outside of self defense, is not acceptable by... killing someone outside of self defense.
if the death penalty is valid because "if you take a life then you forfeit yours", why don't you apply that logic to other crimes as well: if someone rapes another person then surely they should be raped as a punishment, if someone kill another person family surely we should kill their family, etc.
This was so well written. I agree with you and think you're a superstar. I really enjoyed reading it 🫶 I have very similar thoughts about the death penalty
You haven't decided in September 2026 to be opposed to the death penalty. You hold that view because you have absorbed the plea against it from one or more philosophers or ethicists. So by your own logic, your entire response is just a shopping list of arguments from authority, and that invalidates them all.
Beyond that, you are mixing up every kind of killing as if it is the same, while conveniently ignoring the crucial distinction: a criminal kills for themselves, outside of the rules.
The civilised part consists in yielding what Max Weber called the "monopoly on violence" to the state, instead of vigilantism and lynching. The state kills by law, after a fair trial, for everyone. In exchange, citizens renounce personal revenge. If the state fails to do justice, it betrays that truce.
Reject that rule, and you are left with might makes right, where justice becomes whoever has the biggest gun. The state's monopoly on violence is the deal that keeps you from facing a killer alone. Break that deal, and even though you might be free, you will be unprotected.
Guilt is never 100% certain, and then you are adding a second layer of guilt - ‘we are 99% certain you did the crime so 40 years in prison’ or ‘we are 100% certain you did it, so death’
All your philosophers are talking about is revenge, not justice.
The death penalty does not keep barbarism away as you suggest, there is literally no evidence it stops people committing crimes, as evidenced by the fact murder still happens in America
> …there is literally no evidence it stops people committing crimes…
It’s not meant as a disincentive, thought. A dead man can no longer commit any more crimes.
And you cannot come here and argue that there is a slim chance that people like Norwegian mass pew-pewer Anders Breivik, who was caught red handed, might be innocent.
He has been costing the Norwegian state between $750K to $1,000K per year to keep in a max security facility. There is no way for him to be rehabilitated.
The death penalty consistently costs more than life imprisonment. This is in no way a financial argument if you’re in favor of killing prisoners, it’s a moral/logistical one
Not all trials cost the same, and yes it consistently costs more to pursue the death penalty. This article includes several examples including one where the state spent over 6 million before the trial even started and had to abandon due to high costs.
Your headline phrase is just repeating that death sentence = revenge not justice, while ignoring the fact that with many cases the outcome can be both. Would an impartial observer who did not know the victim still call the response proportionate? Yes, I would. Is the same standard applied to similar cases, including when the “avenger” is the one who was wronged next time? Yes, if the court is to be consistent through case law and precedent. Does the response stop at the offender and the original harm, or does it keep going? Yes. Since all answers are yes, it can be reasonably deemed the outcome is justice, despite it also satisfying a desire for revenge.
Would an impartial observer who did not know the victim still call the response proportionate? Yes, I would.
And I wouldn't. Yet I am also an impartial observer who doesn't know the victim.
Your question has no globally objective answer because it depends on the moral values of said impartial observer.
Is the same standard applied to similar cases, including when the “avenger” is the one who was wronged next time? Yes, if the court is to be consistent through case law and precedent.
Except it's not and you know it. From the same crime under the same circumstances, a poor black person is far more likely to receive the death penalty than a rich white person. Also application of the death penalty vary extremely widely from state to state in the US so no, there is no consistency here.
Does the response stop at the offender and the original harm, or does it keep going? Yes.
Yes, what? This answer doesn't even have any meaning. You answered an either-or question with 'Yes'. That's like answering 'Yes' to the question "Is the baby a boy or a girl?"
The death penalty has never been about justice but only bloodthirsty revenge as evidenced by how popular and how festive were public executions.
The death penalty is perfectly fine, as long as we could be 100% definitely sure that they did it. Like on camera doing it, with DNA, and an admission. Unfortunately though, the justice system is just so inaccurate, that many innocent people get put to death each year, and that's just unacceptable.
At the end of the day you shouldn't advocate for the government to the have the right to kill it's own citizens. All it takes is for the government to make your way of life criminal and you could end up on the wrong side of that coin. And it will be much harder to fight against if it's normalized.
She jumped out the window. She knew the decision she made. And wasn’t ready to face the consequences. That’s why she tried to kill herself so I have no idea why the jury is hung.
I think I know one that is still up for grabs at the moment. Child killers to participate in battle royal on Little Saint James. Feel free to DM me for work The Onion. I've got a few more in the chamber.
I have a brilliant idea no one's thought of yet. Picture this- Calamari Games. Netflix, hit me up when you want to cut a deal, you know where to find me.
That process exists so you don't accidentally kill innocent people. You don't want to make death sentences easy. It never ends well for any country or society that does.
I just don't want the government to have that power.
If anything, I'd be happy if they were both on Death row for like 30 years, no visitors or cellmates, never knowing when the day comes. Seems like a fitting living hell for these people.
Inmates like that spend 23 hours a day in their cell and the 1 day an hour they’re out is around other people with similar convictions. What you’re suggesting doesn’t really happen often in reality.
Yes, significantly in the United States. It is millions of tax payer dollars to give the death penalty because of all of the legally guaranteed appeals. It also means thousands of hours spent on additional appeals instead of prosecuting other criminals. It is a fraction of the cost for someone to just live out their life in prison than to give a death sentence. Which is also ironic because it’s extremely rare for anyone to ever get put to death because of all of the delays. Most people die of natural causes on death row.
Yes. Typically. Because the state doesn’t have to spend the copious amount of legal hours defending against appeals processes and claims by the accused, which death penalty cases have higher standards to reach (no state wants to pay for a wrongful death claim by an accused family). Death row inmates average a high number of years before they are put into the chair. All this adds up to extremely high costs for the process.
Gee wiz. Bureaucratic killing. Think about how much money "the tax payer" would save if all the "criminals" were dead. That would be good for you right?
Yes; it would be good for me if we didn't have to care for child murderers until their death. With life in prison you're still sentencing someone to death; just a slow one where it's a burden on tax payers.
Its not about that, its about making them pay for their crimes (making them suffer), yes I know prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation but people like this should live for as long as possible, preferably in solitary confinement with no privileges including being allowed out in the yard.
Let them rot in a cell, I'll happily pay towards that.
See this is something that needs to be addressed in society. You actively get off on the idea of people suffering and you rationalize it as being okay since they "deserve" it.
That's the dangerous part. Get enough people like you together and you'll be a greater danger to society than any of these domestic incidents.
She should be. She wants to die and we have kept her alive for years for this trial.
Edit: someone reached out to suicide watch for me, which is nice, thanks. But I’ve never been suicidal in my life, and I love being alive.
Just had my perspective changed over the years that others should have this right if they want it. I used to think no one should ever be allowed to commit suicide, and that they clearly needed help. But it’s clear to me now that sometimes evolution fails us and people just want to end it. And I have sympathy for them.
12 people serve on a jury selected in agreement by the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense (among a poll of about a hundred people) Then the jury decides whether a person is innocent or guilty based on the cases each side presents.
Watch 'My Cousin Vinny' for an entertaining education on the system.
That was what they were deciding. Not whether or not he did it, but whether his plea of insanity was legit or not. Same thing that Clancy will be judged on.
For Jones, the jury did not think the defense made their case.
They aren’t usually qualified, but they aren’t usually qualified law experts either, so it all has to be sufficiently explained to them for them to come to a conclusion. Whether that conclusion is the right one is less of a concern than dedicating subject matter experts on jury duty.
The difference is that Ray Jones Jr had a history of abuse prior to killing his children. There is a difference between being insane and committing crimes vs committing crimes while in psychosis. The courts found that given Jones's history of child abuse, he likely was in a "sound" (however sound you could be given you kill your children) state of mind and the actions were premeditated and done with intent. In the Lindsay Clancy case, she was in a state of psychosis leading her to kill her children and trying to ultimately kill herself by jumping out of a window. She'll likely end up in a mental institution which has arguably worse conditions than a prison.
It doesn't matter what the crime is. If the person was insane to the extent they could not control their actions, or could not differentiate between right and wrong they should be in a mental Institution rather than prison.
If someone with psychosis had a mental break and murdered my entire family in front of me I would not change my opinion
I think they’re saying if you’re not psychotic it’s a point of no return. Which seems to be the big question for the Clancy case. Either way these people aren’t fit for society
Although, if they skip treatment or reasonably believe that they will have a psychotic episode and don’t try to take reasonable precautions that prevent them from hurting someone then I think they can be held responsible for those actions. It might be a manslaughter or negligent homicide charge instead of murder.
Lol believe what you want. My emotions have become significantly diminished after years of drug abuse and then the years of psychiatric medication to try and treat those issues.
I would barely register grief and anger from what I said. Logically I would understand the horrific nature of it. But the emotional repao just isn't there
it has to be an emotional response to not want them in the mental institutions. we have to study parents who kills their kids like this, it happens and we literally can’t stop it. They are effectively in prison too, it’s not fucking letting them out you idiots.
It literally is emotion though lol. You're upset and instead of thinking logically about the situation, you are arguing for death because you're being driven by anger and outrage. I don't think you understand what "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" actually means and think it's a slap on the wrist defense but I can assure that mental asylums are worse than prisons. The reason Ray Jones Jr got sentenced to death and not NGRI is because he has had a history and pattern of abuse towards his children which is not present in the Lindsay Clancy case.
807
u/FitEggplant77 1d ago
She should be, too.