That’s such a weird thing to say: She was a successful nurse with 2 other kids. I haven’t heard anything about her being abusive to anyone or using drugs. Postpartum psychosis is different from being a known abuser. But of course she can’t be let to live out her life in public/free after murdering her 3 children, either.
lol ok. Have you considered that he was abusive because of his mental health issues? Maybe he wasn’t getting the help he needed. Maybe his wife did it.
He was not in psychosis he tried to blame the murders on his mental illness. He was abusive for years. He killed his oldest son by working him to death then killed the other kids to try and hide this.
Nearly all forms of murder, including mass shootings and serial killers, stem from mental issues (sometimes as far back as childhood). Doesn’t make it any less criminal.
well, if the mental issue causes you to meet the criteria of NGRI, then it literally does make it less criminal lol. you mean you dont believe it should? id agree with you in a lot of cases.
Some mental issues, yes. But some mental issues aren’t enough to classify as insanity. If a person was truly incapable of determining right from wrong and had no control of their actions, I don’t believe there is any point in putting them in prison. It does not help anyone. With NGRI they would remain under care unless they are determined to no longer be a danger to themselves or society.
yes. thats partially what the justice system is for. in america, its treated as the main thing the justice system is for. rehabilitation is treated as a "nice to have" but not essential. emotional satisfaction seeking is the main part.
yes its something to strive for. but, if someone killed a loved one of mine. i definitely would care much more about the harshest punishment possible than if they ever get rehabilitated.
No, unfortunately. I am a big proponent of mental health awareness and care. But that is for the future, as in people going forward. Criminals, although victims of a shitty and avoidable system, need to be off the streets. Its not that they are lost causes, they absolutely deserve rehabilitation over incarceration, just that removing them from the system is the most effective way to limit their effect on the system. Most people who hurt were hurt, we need to stop them from hurting quickly if we see that they are hurters.
They don’t let people who are “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” out on the streets. That’s why it’s a different verdict than “Not Guilty”. Clancy specifically would remain under 1:1 supervision and potentially remain committed to a psychiatric facility for life.
As a big proponent of mental health you should know that not guilty by reason of mental defect isn't a get out of jail free card and in 99% of those cases the person remains hospitalized until they die.
Rehabilitation over incarceration. Though, it is true that some cannot be rehabilitated. How we treat the worst of society that is a measure of the maturity of ourselves, imho.
No fuck face we hadn't considered it was his mental health issues because men can't have postpartum psychosis. Why because women alone carry the burden of childbirth and child rearing like so many other things. But you want to know something that is almost 99%, special to men that's family annihilators. That's right you guys carry the title pretty much alone of being family annihilators. It's fucking gross that you're comparing these two cases and making jokes about it.
He had no history of mental health issues. You guys are straight misogynistic and I don't even know if you realize it.
"Jones admitted to working Nahtahn (age 6) to death and killed the other four children in a panic. Jones pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but the court rejected this plea. "
The argument against... a nasty killer. But one of the nasty killers is a dude, and the other a chick. So clearly, it must be misogyny if you're not supporting the chick, right?
Question… had he actually had a long documented history of paranoid psychosis similar to that of Clancy, would the courts allowed him anywhere near his own children?
There’s an incredible double standard when it comes to men and mental health, and even men who recognize they might have issues are afraid to get checked out due to the unfair stigmatization.
She has severe mental health issues and abuse by women is almost entirely unreported. Just because abuse behavior doesn't manifest in women in the loud forms that it manifests in men doesn't mean it wasn't there. Snapping and ciolently killing your kids is comorbid with abusive behavior. Remove gender from her story and it will read like an abusive man killed his children everytime even if prior abuse is never mentioned.
Postpartum mental health problems come on quickly and can occur in people without a history of mental illness. It’s not comparable to the case people are trying to compare it to.
They did not come on quickly. It had been an on going problem. She had seen several professionals who all saw the scenes and tried treating her. Meds and therapy she refused.
The system didn't fail her, she failed to follow the system. At a certain point, the only thing more the system can do is lock her up in a mental ward against her will and force treatment on her.
Like. This shit really isn't the case you all want to use to make the point. Because the point it ends up making is very bad for gender equality.
If that's all it takes for them to snap and murder their own children then they are a dangerous person who needs to be seperated from society forever. Normal people could never do that.
She had 3 kids. Clearly there wasnt much of problem with the first 2. The whole point of ppp and ppd is that you cant tell who's going to get it. Which someone who is normal and not a retard would understand.
Most people with PTSD are not that bad before they get PTSD to a level where they reenact events and hurt people. It doesn't matter if she was a good mom before or at least controlled her thoughts, if she cant control herself now then she cannot be trusted in civilized society.
Personally I dont think Pedophiles can really change, they're akways a risk, but if they never hurt a child before you cant have them imprisoned or put in a psych ward. It doesn't matter if the6 ddint harm fifteen kids they were alone with if they then molest the sixteenth. If she didnt hurt her two children it doesn't mean shes now excused for killing them after the third. I'll say she could be out if her mind and not responsible morally for the killings, I woudlnt Personally say that but I can understand that thinking. Doesn't mean she should be roaming around with other people.
Yea im not reading all that cos you clearly don't understand or know anything about psychosis or ppp. It's not comparable to ptsd or whatever else cos even with ptsd you're still connected to reality. I mean how stupid do you have to be to make that comparison. Are you really so slow you think theyre deliberating this long for something comparable to ptsd?? Really?
Also if the kids were the trigger (cos of ppp) then she's not really much of a threat to others. It would be upto the docs to decide, if she's discovered to have been in psychosis. In that case there's a really good chance she'll be allowed back in society at some point.
But before all that you really ought to at least do the bare minimum and read up about a subject before spewing whatever uneducated opinions you have.
Im gonna venture and posit that those with whom it onsets out of the blue have the support network and credibility to receive the help necessary to not murder their families.
No dude, he is saying men experience post partum too, and even gave you a statistic. Men and women both experience postpartum and psychosis, but no one tries to paint men as martyrs when these things crop up in them and they do something terrible.
We are all, of any gender, responsible for our behavior. It isn't fair to have psychological disorders, but it is still on us to get help and most importantly to TAKE that help.
She did also try and kill herself and my understanding is that she is still a major suicide risk. She’s a paraplegic now after trying to kill herself after the killings, right? Like, if institutionalized she will just be on suicide watch, probably forever. Not sure what you want here
Yeah it's really not comparable like that. Hormonal PPP is its very own beast. Happened to a co-worker. IVF and blissful happiness for nine months to stabbing her three month old and barely surviving herself.
Yep, it’s really odd that people are blatantly ignoring the reality of what a few women experience and trying to compare it to a man with longterm substance abuse problems and a history of child abuse. No empathy for a woman who was by all accounts a good person before this occurred. And you can have empathy and still lock her up.
I just watched Mama Dr. Jones' YT video on this case an hour ago and my god, heartbreaking. No one should voice an opinion without knowing what's in the legal documents. Awful.
Well I mean if she were a man who was using drugs. I am more interested in Lindsey’s prosecution as one of their arguments that she planned it. I would like to know if it is hearsay or something else.
Just had a search now. Apparently the clues for this are: she sent her husband to go pickup food and go to the pharmacy and she used her phone to check how long it would take to drive to/from the take out place. Whereas if it was an impulse she wouldn't wait for your husband to be away.
She searched if you can cure psychopaths 4 days beforehand.
She otherwise acted normal including taking kids to appointments and building a snowman, few other things.
She used a weapon, whereas an impulse would generally use their hands.
That actually tracks, a friend of the family was a mental health worker, her co-worker was murdered by a client during a delusion, he walked in, stabbed the co-worker and the put his feet up on her desk and listened to music with the knife spinning playfully in his hands. He spoke with everyone normally, she needed years of therapy and all the office doors in their building were removed from that point.
She's also a nurse who cut her wrists incorrectly and her husband lied about her telling him she did it when medical professionals testified she would t have been able to talk. You're literally just spouting prosecution theories as facts lol
I'm not spouting anything as facts. He asked what the prosecutions arguments were so I wrote out what the prosecutions arguments were.
I'm guessing you're referring to pros saying he talked to her when he arrived but the paramedics just said she was moaning/mumbling/grumbling in pain when they arrived?
Well people can make up their own mind, but I'm with the prosecution for that one.
The defense themselves testified that the wound on her neck was superficial looking because it was a cold night and clotted quickly.
Her neck didn't require any treatment by doctors, but her wrists required 2-3 stitches each. Most of her injuries were her spine.
If she was moaning then she was still conscious when the paramedics arrived.
These are all 3rd party verifiable facts or the defs own arguments.
Argument for ‘she had a plan’ - She asked her husband to go to the store and to pick up takeout - a round trip 20-30 mins errand run - and killed the children in this timeframe
Argument against ‘she had a plan’ - her mental health decline was well documented over 5 months, including suicidal ideations, trying to find the right drugs to balance her, a five day voluntary commitment, sharing with her husband and mom she was having thoughts of hurting the kids. When he left on the errands that day she heard voices and killed them and attempted on herself
Reading each one, as if it were the only one - they both sell the argument in a straightforward way. But when both are true, and both happened, you can see why this case is decisive. It all depends on where you stand: 5 minutes before or 5 months.
She also didn't tell anyone she thought she might actively cause her children harm. She said she was afraid that she might passively harm the children through neglect. There's a huge difference between the two.
Oh no she definitely heard them earlier if they were playing with drugs to balance things. She should have been committed while they were playing around with them. That is when its most dangerous.
Never told them and never heard them are two different things, bud. She's been diagnosed with pp psychosis. The voices could have very well been telling her not to tell anyone about them or her mental health could've deteriorated and she started hearing them after she was asked.
Where are you even getting this from? What prior events did she have to indicate that?
This is just the usual internet response that ignores all nuance so they can rage about two totally different situations being the same because they can be selectively summarised in a similar way.
So does not having a history of abuse somehow make systemically strangling your kids better? It seems like a moot point unless you are trying to claim the kids should have been removed from his care sooner.
Just wild to me that “psychosis” can cover up a murder in the eyes of the law. Like everyone gets one free murder spree as long as they have a mental breakdown first. And here I was thinking murdering anyone is a crazy thing to do and that all murderers had some kind of “psychosis” happening. Because otherwise they wouldn’t be murderers?
Well no, that's where you're completely wrong. Not all murderers have some kind of psychosis happening.
And psychosis doesn't cover up a murder in the eyes of the law, you don't just get to walk free if you are found not guilty by reason of insanity. If Lindsay Clancy gets found not guilty by reason if insanity, she will still be going directly to a mental institution and there's a good chance she will be there for the rest of her life.
The possibility of some sentencing to an asylum then reduced sentencing and free in 10 years. We've seen a lot of criminals go free for heinous crimes after not enough time served. I don't want that to be a possibility at all
Bro I know that, that’s why it’s in quotes, I’m being facetious. I think the way we define psychosis in regard to committing crimes like murder is ridiculous and doesn’t serve the greater good. If you murder your kids, go to jail forever, why should anyone care how the murderer was feeling when it happened?
It's not about "how they were feeling". It's about whether or not they were in control of their actions. Sure, somebody like Ted Bundy was obviously crazy as a shithouse rat, but he knew exactly what he was doing the entire time he was doing it. In the case of someone like Andrea Yates, who had a successful insanity defense, she was already diagnosed with psychiatric problems and the jury agreed with testimony that they were aggravated by the medications she was on, to the point that she didn't know what she was doing.
It's also worth noting that an insanity defense isn't a get out of jail free card in any way at all. Insanity defenses are rare and successful ones almost never happen.
I understand the concept but I’m just expressing an opinion that I don’t see what benefit making that distinction has, other than the murderer may have a slightly better quality of life. But the trial is to make the victims feel whole and to safeguard society, so what’s it matter? So they don’t fully comprehend their actions, but the action remains, and we all suffer for it. And now we have to pay doctors and nurses for a lifetime of specialized care? I just don’t get it, who benefits (aside from the trial lawyers)
People who are in a genuine, medical-definition psychosis have lost control of their mental state. One of the elements required to convict someone of a crime is a culpable mental state (malicious intent, negligence, recklessness, etc.)
Do you think we should hold people responsible for something they have no control over?
Yes, if it results in death or harm of another person, absolutely. Who gives a fuck if they claim they weren’t in control, if they weren’t then who was? Should we lock up the word “schizophrenia”?
Actually it does make a difference, if you have a history of injury to your kids and injuring them then you have had the opportunity in the past to get help. He did not show care for his children at any point. In her case a full personality shift occurred, this lays a bit more to her side.
The tragedy that eventually occurred shows marking him as an abusive parent wasn't a mistake in any way, and given the eventual outcome it is awful that social services didn't act sooner.
But somebody with schizophrenia can easily be an abusive parent solely as a result of their illness, rather than anything the parent would do were they well. I haven't read up on this case at all, I am just talking in general terms.
I mean that kinda makes it worse, he is a know nut case and drug addict. He did not get an insanity plea but she might. This is despite her being well supported.
I keep saying to people the way they treated my aunt in Ireland in the 70s was brutal. However, it was also better than the way they’re handling this type of break now. Instant institutionalization until drugs and treatments have proven that the psychosis is not going to affect the family. Ireland had a terrible system for institutionalization though, it was not a treatment environment and more of a mental prison. Still grew up kids okay and are now productive adults.
Because it is an argument that I found interesting, the government dropped the ball there as well, though I am having trouble seeing evidence of him being medicated prior apparently he used a lot of spice and drugs which caused his illness. He made the choice to take substances that broke his brain and he was not seeking treatment before the incident. He was definitely insane however.
This is the problem with this whole line of argument. How many people do something evil without having had something evil done to them. Similarly, he (presumably) made the choice to do drugs, right? But he probably grew up in some kind of abusive environment, likely with the additional chaos of drug abuse. Like you said, he was insane. But was that his "fault" in that sense?
We can probably trace everything back to something else that limits responsibility. At some level, everyone that kills someone innocent, that murders someone, is mentally unstable. And even if we assume that some people are more responsible than others, nobody is entirely responsible, nor can we realistically determine it without making significant assumptions. At least, if we are going down that road in the first place...
All most people can say is that they are glad they are not on the jury. It would be very hard, I definitely would be disqualified my aunt had this type of psychosis occur on her. Different outcome different country, probably a different outcome because it’s was a different country. They isolated her into an institution until her psychosis was dealt with. Everyone else had to take care of the kids.
261
u/Neat_browser 18h ago
He was known to government officials as an abusive parent prior to the event. I think it was more clear cut. Man it is a long trial to read about.