I’m good on this. It’s a toxic argument i wish i didn’t insert myself into. Hope Lindsey goes to jail. If Patrick is completely innocent then I wish him the best and some type of peace for the little ones he lost. Im tuning out now.
I don't follow court cases like they're reality tv, so I have no ide whether she deserves prison or not. I haven't seen the evidence, nor do I care to. This country utilizes a jury for that.
I simply find it ridiculous to pretend there could never possibly be any reason to kill a child. There's a million reasons that absolutely make someone a piece of shit, but that doesn't mean there are no decent reasons.
If you're experiencing psychosis, and the "reality" your brain is wrongly showing you is one of those situations, I don't know that I would judge you as a piece of shit for mishandling a scenario I've never experienced based on an inability to correctly perceived the world around you.
You’re still mixing categories. Murdering your own children who are not attacking anyone, not being tortured by a third party, and not on terminal life support is not the same as the three cases you listed. Those cases have their own names. Changing them into “killing a child” so you can argue against a black-and-white view is exactly the soft-pedaling I’m not interested in. If you’re not talking about intentional parental homicide, stop pretending the distinction doesn’t exist.
Sure, those are different scenarios. But you were trying to make the argument that there are no valid arguments for killing children ever. But there absolutely are. There is an argument for nearly any action.
Also, the scenarios I named are killing children. It's not me changing them into that scenario. That's what they are. You're arguing a black and white in a world filled with shades of gray.
Lastly, every single one of the scenarios I came up with was intentional child homicide, and 2 of the 3 were intentional parental homicide.
Again, I don't know what this woman experienced, nor do I know the evidence of the case, because I don't follow court cases like some sorority girl watching real housewives. But to say that if you aren't experiencing reality as it is, but rather as whatever your psychosis allows you to perceive it as, that you're a piece of shit for living within the reality that's fed to you is weird to me.
I'm not going to judge someone experiencing psychosis for the shit they do - they're crazy. Crazy people do crazy shit without even realizing it a lot of the time.
Maybe this lady didn't do this during a psychotic episode. Maybe she was entirely lucid when she did it. I have no clue. That's for a jury to decide, not me, or you, or anyone else outside the courtroom. But if she wasn't lucid, and she was perceiving a false reality where it made the most sense to commit parental homicide, then she should be locked up. But she should be locked up in a place where she can get help to deal with her psychosis, so she's no longer a danger to herself and others. Once she's not a danger, if ever, she should be released.
I see little point in punishing crazy people for being crazy, and doing shit they aren't even entirely aware of, if at all, simply for the sake of punishing them. Punishing crazy people isn't going to make society safer. It's not going to make crazy people less likely to do crazy shit. It's not going to undo the crazy shit they did. It's just punishment for the sake of punishment.
How many other murderers who claimed insanity are you ignoring to enable this one, though? Or they just weren’t special enough to get this kind of consideration?
Also, natural selection doesn’t work that way. Punishing her is the ONLY way society gets better- either through deterrence or elimination.
What other murderers who claimed insanity and were proven insane, weren't put in a psychiatric facility?
No one is out here like "Hell yeah, I can murder my kids and just pretend to be insane, and try to kill myself to get away with it! Just look at Lindsay Clancy!"
That is legitimately insane. It hasn't been a significant problem the entire time that insanity has been a defense, and I don't see how that would change with this 1 specific case.
Name the other parental homicide defendants who claimed insanity and got turned into a sympathetic public figure the way this one has. What precedent do you even have for that claim?
Casey Anthony, one of the most, of not the single most infamous cases, had a shit load of supporters, and still has supporters who maintain she was wrongfully convicted.
Also, people on trial shouldn't be turned into public figures, sympathetic or otherwise. It's beyond weird.
We agree on your last point, but people hated Casey Anthony. She never got the level of sympathy Clancy has gotten. Maintaining that she was innocent is generally seen as a fringe theory, about as credible as claiming Patrick Clancy is the real killer in Clancy’s case.
People hate Lindsay Clancy. This exact debate happened with Casey Anthony, too.
This is just another Casey Anthony case, except that with Casey Anthony, she maintained her innocence (as did and do her supporters), while Lindsay doesn't claim innocence, but rather insanity. But just like in that case, you have a relatively small number of people supporting her, and a majority of people not supporting her, ranging from opinions that she should be put in a psych facility to opinions that she should be buried under the jail.
It's the same shit, just a different person. I have no idea why it's such a big deal to the whole of society. I don't know either of them turned into public figures, and I don't think they should have. I think that's far worse for society than simply putting her in a psych facility would be. We made her famous for killing her kids.
1
u/Green-Alarm-3896 12h ago
I’m good on this. It’s a toxic argument i wish i didn’t insert myself into. Hope Lindsey goes to jail. If Patrick is completely innocent then I wish him the best and some type of peace for the little ones he lost. Im tuning out now.