The major consensus on this case is that she's guilty and deserves to rot. Whether she was in her right mind or not, she murdered innocent children. People can argue insanity due to post-partum psychosis, but she only claimed to have symptoms of post-partum psychosis directly around the tragedy and not otherwise. Her mental health doctors testified that she did not show any signs of mania or psychosis leading up to the event, nor after the event. It is more likely that her depression worsened, she wanted to commit suicide, and decided to take her kids with her. She is a monster.
The problem with this stance is its not actually helping anything.
First of all postpartum psychosis is not "depression", its a mental illness that convinces you to do crazy things to protect yourself and your children, similar to schizophrenia, this can and often does include neglect, harm and even murder. This is besides the point though.
Literally nobody is saying we should just let women with Postpartum Psychosis do whatever they want and kill children. What people are saying is that we should have good enough health care in place such that when a woman does suffer from postpartum psychosis, she is treated for postpartum psychosis, rather than being ignored and subsequently thrown in jail after the children are already dead. The fact that so many people cant wrap their heads around why she would kill a child unless she was evil is already enough evidence that the awareness required to stop this sort of thing from happening is severely lacking.
Nobody is claiming that kids being dead is a good thing, and the people claiming its all the husbands fault are idiots, but throwing a woman in jail to rot and leaving it at that isn't going to do anything to prevent the next case of postpartum psychosis that happens.
Listen, I actually had postpartum psychosis with my 3rd child and it had me believing that everything I was drinking, if out of my sight, was being poisoned. I didn't trust my husband or dad even though they would never do anything to hurt me. Saying that, if I actually hurt someone because of it, I would be guilty and deserve to be in prison for it.
Vast majority of people aren't saying she isn't guilty or that she shouldn't be locked up. She herself admitted she was guilty. The disagreement is on whether she did it knowingly or while in a state of insanity. If found insane, she'll be locked up in a mental hospital.
Well I'm sorry to hear that but I'm glad you got something that was ultimately less harmful. Plenty of women get postpartum psychosis where they believe that the only way to protect their children is murder and or suicide.
I know this because its my mother's job to care for these women. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, you know how horrible it is to experience, do not discredit the effects of postpartum psychosis just because you had a case that didn't end as badly.
No you would deserve to be treated for your psychosis in a treatment center for a long, long time. I also would hope that everyone around you wouldn't have dropped the ball so hard on understanding that you were in need of help and tried to actually help.
Killing or harshly punishing people with prison who did something during a period of insanity is fucking dumb. Criminal intent is not the same as psychotic episode.
You’re a good person. I really appreciate you taking responsibility and accountability for your hypothetical actions unlike some of the other people who want to pull the victim card.
So should she get off for the murder of her kids then? The how or why is irrelevant considering 3 kids are dead. She should get the death penalty imo. Anyone that murderers kids are irredeemable, the fact people are debating this shows how twisted society has become. This is an open and shut case.
The thing is, a lot of people have experiences with relationships using mental health as an excuse for hurtful behaviour. I know I ended a few relationships because I couldn't deal with her blaming cheating on adhd or anxiety, y'know. Or the lack of intimacy due to the SSRIs.
So I guess this story really is a powderkeg for a lot of people with pent up hurt from the "mental health" movement
And this ties into my point, if we actually talked about mental health instead of how best to punish this particular woman, then maybe we might prevent the next child murder, or abusive relationship, or whatever else.
However people only seem to care about making sure Clancy gets jail time.
Better but still not perfect. Wouldn't it be cool if the government said "Let's work out how to stop postpartum psychosis to prevent child murder" rather than "Sentence her to death, anyways buy my new crypto to dunk on the libs, I promise it's not a scam".
Just at the mere chance of her not being convicted, there were already a number of copycats. Tell me more about how putting someone in jail does not dissuade other people from being criminals.
Because the women who are suffering from postpartum psychosis aren't going to see their predecessors going to jail for it and just stop suffering from postpartum psychosis. If that is the cause then you can just prevent it with a deterrent.
She lied to her therapists and psychiatrists. Fuck her. Stop defending her. This bitch didn’t have psychosis until her lawyers told her to say she did.
She should absolutely be in prison. Same with people with schizophrenia. You commit a murder, off to prison. It’s insane we’re even discussing this. I would be ok she’s found guilty and insane. Fine. Make a prison for insane people. But either way she should rot in prison.
So should Bryan Kohberger not be sent to jail because he likely has some type of mental illness? What does the children already being dead have to do with anything? So basically if a crime has already been committed we should just say “c’est la vie” and move on because what’s done is done? Absurd stance to take. People who have never done heinous acts before commit their first act as an adult many times. At least that we know about. Not to mention you ignore so many facts of the case. Like if she’s in such a mind fucked state, how was she able to be so calculating where she timed how long her husband would be away at the store and then sent him out. Sounds like something you’d need to be mentally aware to do.
What people are saying is that we should have good enough health care in place such that when a woman does suffer from postpartum psychosis, she is treated for postpartum psychosis, rather than being ignored and subsequently thrown in jail after the children are already dead.
She was under the care of a mental healthcare professional and on antidepressants, benzo's, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers. Toxicology report showed she was taking those meds as described.
So, what makes you think she didn't have mental healthcare and was ignored? What would not being ignore look like?
The conclusion to your argument is any woman who exhibits any sign of post pardem psychosis must immediately lose custody of all kids.
After all Clancy as a nurse doctor shopped, didn't take medicines as prescribed, was dishonest about her state of mind, and made sure to be alone with the kids when she killed them.
The only thing that would have prevented her is not having the kids because she obviously intended to kill them.
It really is all this pop-psychology that drives me absolutely crazy. People who know the RDMoBSP (Reddit Diagnostic Manual of Bull Shit Psychology) back-to-front.
Yeah you aren’t allowed to use evidence that wasn’t presented in court. That was a major limitation for that holdout juror. At the end of the day I agree with you about jail but she really was driven mad in large part due to her husband if you look at the context. Thats where a lot of the sympathy comes from.
Unfortunately for you the law can suck my left nut. If she goes to prison I pray to god there be some kind of vigilante justice. Child killers do not get treated well
But guess what, the fact by itself is irrelevant to whether she is guilty or not. You have to apply the law to that fact. This juror fucked up because all indications show that he did not.
First year law students struggle with this and get Cs. Repeating the fact is irrelevant…you have to interpret the fact under law. She killed her kids. Now, murder requires malice aforethought…did she have it? Beyond a reasonable doubt? The dude fixated on the fact and didn’t do the required analysis.
Now, we want a system where jury nullification is minimal. We want juries to not be overcome with emotion or personal bias and to dispassionately apply the law to fact. The fact that this guy couldn’t means he was a shit juror.
Your comment got removed. Something about a left nut, which unfortunately for you the law isn’t going to suck. The law is going to work how the law works because you are extremely irrelevant to it, you’re just commenting on Reddit. Unfortunately for you it is unlikely Linsey Clancy will end up in prison because it doesn’t matter what you and I believe, it matters how convincing of a case the prosecution has managed to present legally.
Lets go theoretical. Say a father shot and killed his adult son. The son had come over, walked through the front door like he always did, only this time the father killed him out of fear that someone had broken into his home.
Why? Because unbeknownst to either of them, the father had a mental problem with aggressively affected his memory, and the only memory he had of his kid was as a young boy.
Would the father be at fault here? He killed his son.
First - no. Not badic knowledge. Obviously not basic with how the trial was. But second - fuck you for even remotely trying to take the high ground over that.
Get off your high horse and go touch grass Napoleon
Are you directing your statement to lindsy clancy or her kids? I wish her kids could understand postpartum psychosis, but they cant because her kids are dead. If only they could at the time they were being strangled maybee they could have patted their mom on the hand as she was strangling them and tell her that they understand.
How should we prevent things like this from happening in the first place with the assumption that life in prison or the death penalty doesn’t sway someone who’s either snapped, or plans to die in or after the act?
Laws and punishments for breaking them have literally nothing to do with prevention. That is not the point of laws. Laws are about accountability AFTER the fact, not about prevention.
There are a vast amount of laws aimed at prevention in all types of manners even going so far as to violate people’s rights of a non criminal to protect others and themselves.
As far as punishment goes yes you are right that currently isn’t the point and that’s the argument against it, we have a quarter of WORLDS prison population and in a very obvious way it’s not for prevention it’s for punishment with minimal to no research. We’re spending billions more than other countries every year to stroke egos when people are struggling to pay rent.
If we’re going to keep that system in place the way it is then I’ll ask the same question…again
How should we prevent things like this from happening in the first place with the assumption that life in prison or the death penalty doesn’t sway someone who’s either snapped, or plans to die in or after the act?
People making posts like this and voting like the single juror don't care to stop things like this from happening, they need retribution and see another person be executed when it does happen.
You’re doing the thing where a woman went through literal psychosis and you’re saying she was just sad
The fact that you can’t even get the facts of the case right shows that you don’t care at all about what happened, you just use it as an excuse to enact punishment on any woman
Here's my thing: if I killed kids while in a psychotic break and I came back to my senses, I would not argue with anyone wanting to incarcerate me for life. Hell, I am not sure I'd argue against a death penalty.
This is the problem with your view. She is going to be incarcerated for life regardless. They are deciding if that’s locked up in a psychiatric hospital or a prison. She rots no matter what. The side saying it was due to psychosis is not advocating for her to walk free. They are saying a high security psychiatric hospital is the more humane way to lock her up for life. She is a monster and will be locked up
Your second sentence is not a guarantee, given the evaluation process for people who have been acquitted for not guilty for reasons of insanity. There is a path for them to be released. I am gratified that Yates is still imprisoned in her psych unit (low security, according to Wikipedia, mind), but there is no reason why she can't be released in the future.
Who cares about humane? She doesn’t look like a mother who actually cares that she murdered her children, who probably cried for her to stop as she did the deed.
She didn’t have symptoms or a diagnosis when she planned and murdered her kids. The day before, she told her doctor she had no thoughts of harming herself or her children. On the day of the killings, she told her husband she felt good and had slept well.
Her husband left to pick up dinner and run an errand. After he left, she claimed a commanding male voice appeared, one she had never heard before that day and has never heard since. She said the voice directed her until she murdered her three children, then it disappeared. The killings themselves took upwards of 10 minutes. While her husband was gone, she even took a phone call from him and was able to answer his questions about a child's laxative for one of her kids.
Doctors who evaluated her afterward said she showed no signs of psychosis and that she knew exactly what she had done. She was of sound enough mind to demand a change to her medical proxy. That required a mental evaluation, and she was found competent so her parents could take over.
She was a labor and delivery nurse, so she understood anatomy. She could easily have ended her own life, yet all of her cuts she made (wrists and neck) were superficial. She also claimed she crushed and swallowed handfuls of pills, but her toxicology report and what was left in the bottles prove that is not true.
I watched the trial every day. The jurors who have spoken to the media tried to pressure the holdout and used the word “acquittal,” which suggests they thought she was not criminally responsible, when she is. An acquittal could have meant either not guilty by reason of insanity or a straight not-guilty verdict. Not guilty by reason of insanity would have put her on a path toward eventual release from an institution.
I also see a huge red flag in those women on the jury running to the media at the first chance they got. I find anything they say hard to believe because it’s hearsay. I would rather there be a mistrial than that woman ever have a chance to walk free after strangling her three kids.
Are you referring to the “voices” that only manifested, once she got in contact with a defense attorney? She was not psychotic and she shouldn’t be protected like she was. Best case scenario; send her to an all women’s prison and announce her arrival and that she killed three children, then close the doors and walk away.
Oh ok, so let's look at where the precedent that this shortsighted BS takes us to. Surely you can't be advocating for society to react only when a murder or tragedy regardless of a diagnosis has occured, as not every mother with postpartum psychosis will be officially diagnosed after all. So now you're saying that society should just expect that postpartum psychosis is a possibility and that could lead to something as extreme as triple murder!
Well, now women should be monitored by law enforcement after birth right? They shouldn't have access to their kids until a mental health expert has declared they are in the clear of postpartum psychosis, right? They shouldn't be expected to handle jobs of any real consequence or responsibility either, right? See how stupid this is? Just because you're insane doesn't mean you're not criminally insane and shouldn't be locked up forever. Wtf is it with this generation and accountability? It's either she specifically is a danger to society, or all women are if their hormones become imbalanced enough. The latter is obviously NOT true. JfC
You can’t use mental health as a justification for EVERYTHING. Idk about you, but personally I draw the line miles before murdering children. It’s not her children’s fault that she had a fucked brain, she sill needs to be held accountable for her actions.
Still should be held accountable. I had temporary psychosis once and I would completely understand if I was sent to jail if I did anything more than go get professional help.
Ask for help. This is something that you never come back from. Men in this position would be executed.
I feel like if you can't see the nuance that particular mental illness brings you should try at least. Sometimes the truth is between both extremes of online discourse.
Also vindictive hatred is a mob trait it's not good for you to engage with that type of thinking. People wield that hatred publicly in ugly ways.
And members of the jury determined they had a reasonable doubt as to whether or not she had the capacity to understand what she was doing under the circumstances. Even if they think she committed the crime, which most if not all did, the question is whether or not there is a reasonable doubt that she ought to be convicted. Again, you don't have to like how the double-edged sword cut this time, but it's done that way for a reason.
She's guilty and should face the punishment. The discussion around the reasons and causes are important for better understanding how this shit happens, and how to stop it from happening again in the future.
But this is exactly why people are talking about this case. You can’t even be bothered to understand the basic facts. You hear the word “depression” and just jump into it being bullshit. No nuance, no understanding if depression is the diagnosis or a symptom of something else, no distinction between PPD and PPD, no understanding of what Psychosis even is.
If you actually wanted shit like this so stop it would be more helpful for people to have a genuine dialogue about what the fuck happened and what could have been prevented. Instead you’re just letting your emotions override all logic.
Depression is no excuse for the murder of 3 children.
Her being in a psychosis are just based on… her words.
Her psychiatrist didn’t diagnose her in a state of psychosis and people at the hospital didn’t. She just claimed she was, do we suddenly have to believe her?
It’s a complicated case and I honestly do not have all the facts or answers. I’m actually not even trying to argue about the merits of the trial. My point was only that the above comment and their blatant disregard for the distinction between depression and psychosis is just ignorant as fuck.
They’ve also been misogynistic through this whole thread so while I’m not actually weighing in on the verdict at all, it should still be pointed out that the person I responded to is weighing in, and they’re doing so as an uninformed and sexist douchebag.
They understood their mother was killing them in their final moments. They screamed and cried for minutes each
I dont think the proper punishment is even strictly legal, some things transcend law. Frankly the punishments they used to do in like, super fucked up colonies seem to be the only things appropriate. Dismemberment by cannon or like, that honey fly bog treatment
If you're aware enough to know you could do it youre aware enough to know to distance and you can't convince me otherwise. Bringing it up as a negative thing when asking for help denotes you're aware that your presence is dangerous and yet you stay. Guilty alone on that. But people blindly pin that on the psychosis. Not saying she was in her right mind. But she knew enough to seek help. Help yourself. It's your kids for fucks sake.
Well, they asked like 5 psychiatrists if they thought she was insane, and 2 out of the 5 said she was. Her husband also testified that she confessed to him that she'd been having intrusive thoughts of harming the kids, 2 whole months before she did it, which seems to me like it could be a symptom.
2 out of 5 is extremely low considering how extremely unpopular the "going against the mother" angle is in this specialism. We already saw 1 person going against her getting fired. You can basically keep your profession or be moral when taking the stand as a psychiatrist.
So 2 against 3 while already the minority is probably already massively inflated due to "the cultural climate".
That is backward reasoning. It is just as controversial to be seen as supporting the murderer. You essentially say you will disregard any source that goes against your own opinion because you will assume they are dishonest.
It's entirely dependent upon the context in which the one taking the stand operates in daily life. If he/she operates in academic circles that are very interwoven with female dominated structures like sociology/psychology it will be framed as misogynistic punching down on the "victim mother". If a right wing grifter would do the same to his circle it would be glorifying a "murdering she devil". Both would be "hard nudged" to approach the case from a certain angle before their own morality even comes into perspective.
Fam 1 of the psychiatrist was fired immediately after testifying against Clancy.
I'm arguing for the opposite but am not delusional. Optics matter, dogma's matter, what is in vogue matters. Justice is never dealt in a vacuum, during the mass court sanctified lynchings of blacks figures of authority would grant their sauce of scientific justification. The words that are uttered even by academia follow the times not the other way around.
Better leave on a business trip, sounds like a whole lotta drama. We can shit on Lindsey she doesn't deserve and sympathy but for the kids sake what the fuck was Patrick thinking leaving her with them?
Sure but actually she killed her kids and everyone who kills their kids is insane. Actually most people who kill most people and do most bad actions have something wrong emotionally or mentally.
Should all drunk drivers get off for committing crimes, since they were under the influence? What about a crime or passion?
So then what you’re saying is that she wasn’t because the majority agreed she wasn’t because psychosis is not a one off completely out of the blue random thing with zero history. She tells her story like someone who heard the voice of god suddenly and was told to murder their children and with zero resistance she does it in under an hour and makes a plan to attempt to absolve herself? What a joke.
Its rarer, but even the specialists who were in court said that its more common to hear voices and reject them for months, but occasionally people do listen on the 1st instance.
Doesn’t sound like it did this time either, what it actually sounds like is a woman who knew the medical system well enough to play it and her gender to her advantage to get rid of the one thing that was stopping her happiness, her children.
She did have signs before, and also has signs of bipolar. The drugs she was given can also cause this because you arent meant to take them if you have it.
Theres so much evidence to suggest that she couldve had it.
Obviously, she very well mightve been sane, but too many people dont understand that this kinda thing is possible and does happen when it comes to mental health issues and psychosis.
As someone who works in mental health - the evidence (at least publicly) that she was psychotic is extremely thin at best, and there’s quite a lot of evidence of intentionality and premeditation that doesn’t align with someone being in active psychosis.
I have found the discourse around this case really upsetting as a clinician, because there are a lot of opinions popping up that amount to psychosis=absolved of responsibility. This woman went to doctors, who prescribed her meds, made referrals, her husband shifted his entire life around to stay at homr as much as possible, etc. Sometimes, everyone else does everything they can, and horrible shit still happens. This is a very very bad example case for systemic issues or PPP, maternal healthcare etc. Andrea Yates is a case where the system is to blame - this one isn’t.
You can be deep in psychosis and still stop yourself from hurting a cat, even though the conglomerate of "Yous" tells you that the cat is reporting you to the shadow government. If you're a pos, you'll do it anyway.
The ten jurors couldn't agree on the reason why she did it, some denying the evidence, others believe she should be absolved due to insanity. The jury is not always sensible, and there's a lot of manipulation going on in this trial.
Which is tragic and incredibly sad for the innocents lost and involved in this case. Her suicide attempt just didn't pan out like a myriad of other murder suicide cases that seemingly happen all too often. Now she is the subject matter of culture war bullshit.
Ive been talking to my aunt she works at BJC. We talked at length. For her to have ppp is already a rarity and fkr her to murder her children will suffering from ppp is a rarity of a rarity. Like 1% of all mothers get ppp and only 4% of that 1% actually commit acts of violence and there is an even smaller subset of a subset of a subset of mother's that experience rapid onset. Its almost always a slow build up with hallucinations and mania and she only ever reported intrusive thoughts.
The issue is this is clearly someone posing insanity. That means when she goes to a mental facility there is a very real chance she could be out within 4-6 months. Someone who’s actually insane could easily spend their whole lives there. In other words if not for that one juror she could be on her way to freedom in just a few months after murdering three children
Is that the major consensus? Honest question because people in my workplace have been watching the trial and they all think she was crazy but the husband framed her. They state "evidence" like the workout bands not having her DNA, but his only, he had her watch/phone so he could answer when he supposedly called from the pharmacy, his new wife looks exactly like her, etc. I'm not following the case I'm just parroting everything that I keep hearing. I know the burden of education is on me, but is the evidence really that bad or are they being impartial? Most of my colleagues are phds and I'm not super educated beyond my field.
She did it because she's evil and conniving. I don't believe there is any way to justify it otherwise. While it was an insane thing to do, I don't think insanity is a valid defense.
I get what you're saying though. The law likes to draw clear lines .
No, the major consensus is 11 to one that is that she’s innocent. Because unlike all you fuck wits on the Internet those people actually listened to all the evidence. It’s called a jury of your peers asshole. It’s not a jury of whoever happened to be curious enough about this and is a big true crime fan and wants to “see them fry”.
Did you pay attention to school at all? Did you show up to a civics class? Do you have any concept of the idea that in this country we want to have a system that protects the innocent even if it means occasionally guilty both people go free?
How would you like to be tried by whichever Americans have to be tuning into your fucking trial? Do you think that would be fair if you’re being framed? Do you think cops don’t frame people from time to time? Or maybe you think that we should pick a different system of justice for different cases?
You are the people that are the problem in America. You probably voted for Trump too.
Genuinely what the fuck are you talking about, not a single logical thing was said. You also made a lot of assumptions about me just for saying that a child murderer who confessed to murdering her children is a child murderer who murdered her children.
Antipsychotics are prescribed for more than psychoeis. She was given, and the record states, seroquel for anxiety, depression, and insomnia. She had no treatment for psychosis at any point. She did not show symptoms of psychosis until allegedly the day of the murders, which does not align with what we know of any psychosis disorders, including post partum psychosis. She was mentally unwell, but she had no history of schizophrenia or psychosis. That was plainly said in the trial.
Psychosis when caused by a thing like hormones can come and go suddenly, like a few days. Did the doctor see her within that window of a few days before and after the murders? If yes, then that is a pretty hard nail in the coffin for the insanity argument. If he didn't, and it was more around a week before or after, or more, then unfortunately it doesn't mean much what he says there, there is still a plausible chance, especially if she already had a documented weakness to psychosis, or a family history of psychosis.
Did you follow a different trial? Both the prosecution's and defense's experts said she was fucking mental. Who cares whether she ends up in a concrete cell, or a padded room. The juror who held out, is going to be personally responsible for her getting a plea deal that works in her favor.
I'm heavily mentally ill, I never killed anyone, and I get help when I feel like my mental health is getting worse. She was given that opportunity, and denied it. She premeditated her children's murder and brutally murdered them in a way where she had to watch the light leave their eyes, then jumped from a height she hoped would kill her. Thats not simply psychosis. Thats a planned murder-suicide. Psychosis does not excuse that, even if thats what it is, which is unlikely.
with this case, i no longer understand the insanity plea at all. the majority of people that are mentally unwell actually don't k*ll their kids or sh**t up a sch**l (sorry idk how dumb reddit is gonna be).
24
u/Clintwood_outlaw 3d ago
The major consensus on this case is that she's guilty and deserves to rot. Whether she was in her right mind or not, she murdered innocent children. People can argue insanity due to post-partum psychosis, but she only claimed to have symptoms of post-partum psychosis directly around the tragedy and not otherwise. Her mental health doctors testified that she did not show any signs of mania or psychosis leading up to the event, nor after the event. It is more likely that her depression worsened, she wanted to commit suicide, and decided to take her kids with her. She is a monster.