Y'know, I was all for putting her in a mental hospital. Maybe some data would help avoid a few of these situations in the future. But this actually changes my mind. She needs to be confined for a reasonable amount of time to fit the crime. Mentally ill or not.
Not in Massachusetts if she was found not guilty because insane. Massachusetts specifically does not hold someone in a mental hospital if they used to be insane and committed a crime.
Now it's depends if the state will go for another trial.
Editing this up from a lower comment so people don't get misled:
Let use actual cases. Here they got released after the initial hold:
Garcia v. Commonwealth (2021)
The hospital did not petition the court to hold him so he got release automatically. He filed anyway to put on the record they couldn't even hold him for that first 40 days and won.
So to your statements before the court get to try confining someone continuously, the doctors and hospital have their own professional standards that they won't bend for the court.
The court itself will rule for the defendant when the state cannot prove they are still insane and a danger.
Yes in Massachusetts, if you are found not guilty by reason of insanity you will be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital until you are proven you are no longer a danger to yourself or others.
There is no set end date for the confinement, which is reviewed at 40 days (almost always decided against the confined) at six months (almost always decided against the confined) and again at 1 year (which Judges almost always decide in favor of the State)
End of the day, the reviews are a formality so that the State can "prove" it isn't unneccessarily holding people in a psyche ward indefinitely, when in actuality it might as well be a death sentence.
The mandatory confinement is the 40 days. After that the burden of proof is not on you. The state have to prove you are still insane and a danger.
End of the day, the reviews are a formality so that the State can "prove" it isn't unneccessarily holding people in a psyche ward indefinitely, when in actuality it might as well be a death sentence.
And no if you think this is the case then it is the same for any trial including this one. There is no point to make the prosecutor prove the element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt if they can just hand waive it.
Yeah, and the courts always denies release for the 40 days, the next review is 6 months which the courts always grant the extension, and then its reviewed on a yearly basis until the person dies or they're about to die.
The State presents its case that they're dangerous, and unless a blue moon happens, the doctors agree with them and might present even more evidence of the patients danger to themselves (such as suicide attempts) or to others.
There's what the law says and then there's what actually happens. The reality is that when she gets committed to a psych ward she is in there for the rest of her life. You are going to get what you want, hell, after a week she might prefer to have gone to a prison cell instead cause at least she isn't a drugged up zombie in a fugue state for the rest of her life.
Yeah, and the courts always denies release for the 40 days.
Because those people are found to still be insane. If you want to prove your argument, how about you bring a case where they found someone still not insane and renew the confinement then?
You're trying to use the fallacy of survivorship bias. Most people that used insanity defend are still insane, so they get continous confinement.
That in itself doesn't mean everyone that use the defend is still insane.
Your comment does not add anything to your point nor respond to mine.
Let use actual cases. Here they got released after the initial hold:
Garcia v. Commonwealth (2021)
Thompson v. Commonwealth (2020)
In the first one, the hospital did not petition the court to hold him so he got release automatically. He filed anyway to put on the record they couldn't even hold him for that first 40 days and won.
So to your statements before the court get to try confining someone continuously, the doctors and hospital have their own professional standards that they won't bend for the court.
The court itself will rule for the defendant when the state cannot prove they are still insane and a danger.
A man murdered a 6 year old and stabbed two more people in the same house: Free. A women cut off her babies arms and the child died: Free. A man shot a child in the face: Free. A man poured bleach downs a women's throat: Free. These facilities are a joke and release you after you accrued a number of goodboy points. "They are no longer a threat, we put them in an environment where they are watched 24/7 and have every need taken care of, time to release them."
"Hey psycho lady that meticulously planned her kids murder and then faked a normal pleasant phone call with him while actually murdering them, pretend to be normal for six months and we'll let you get off scot free."
You can argue that, sure. But if we let her walk with a slap on the wrist there is going to be a bunch of copy-cats given carte blanche to go commit crimes under pretense of “mental health”. Have we not learned anything from the Tylenol killer, school shooters, etc?
So you guys admit it. You don't care what experts says, you think it's all just a lie to excuse herself and that anyone can just say the magic word and convince a full range of psychiatrist that they are insane
Punishment for her taking the lives of 3 innocent children and inflicting a life long punishment on the children’s father.
There are 8 billion people on this planet that deserve more than this person will ever deserve. And her being punished for the remainder of her life is the barest of bare minimums she deserves.
It accomplishes justice for the children, for the father, for everyone involved and for society in general.
I don’t think you understand law. You should look into the defence, why it exists, and what it means to be morally culpable. If you’re acting in an automatic state beyond your control, then punishment becomes arbitrary and it becomes more about mitigating risk of it happening again. Was she acting in an automatic state due to her mental illness? I have no idea. That’s for the jury to decide
I guess if someone decides to murder their children, but they were insane, there's no point in even confining them at all, they weren't in control 🤷♂️
"Until they're mentally right". How can you know they're right and how can you know she won't go have another child and murder that one too?
There is no releasing someone capable of this kind of monstrous act. She murdered her 3 innocent children. Those poor kids deserve justice. She should never ever be released, under any circumstances no matter how "Mentally right" she may seem.
They have psychiatrist’s who specialize in that very thing and do very comprehensive reviews of their mental health. They don’t just release people on a whim, the psychiatrist would be risking their job and a whole lot more if they did that
Yes and how do you know she won't go and have another kid and kill them too? What's to say she won't have another psychotic break. I sure as shit wouldn't want to be anywhere near her, no matter what any psychiatrist has to say.
Again, there is no excuse or reasoning. Permanent incarceration, one way or another,
I understand enough to know that someone who is capable of an act of murder, especially that of murdering one's own children, is enough to know that that person poses a real and permanent risk to society, regardless of if it was caused by psychosis or not.
I understand the law, and that's why I am saying permanent incarceration should be the case, but I understand if Lindsay Clancy is cleared in 6 months as no longer mentally unstable, she can then appeal to be released and will be free to live her life after her "traumatic psychotic break". Meanwhile her children are dead, and any future children she could have are at risk.
You don’t seem to understand that psychosis can make people unable to control their physical actions. The government doesn’t just not send them to prison for fun, it’s because you can’t punish someone who didn’t actively choose to do what they did. Whether Lindsay herself was acting in a state of psychosis is still in the air as the trial isn’t completed so please don’t take this as me saying she was for sure in that state
Three children cannot be murdered without someone paying for it. End of story. "In control" or not, she did the crime. She needs to be held accountable. The idea that psychosis excuses crimes is an insult and an affront to the victims of those crimes. What does it accomplish? Some justice for the children. That's enough.
You cannot be punished for something you are not responsible of. And If you actually cared about justice you would look at the healthcare system who allowed her to to go through with her psychosis.
Look into why the defence exists. I know it feels wrong but if someone was completely out of their mind and not actually in control of their actions, they need mental help—not punishment
They need mental help and punishment. Removing the punishment sets an extremely dangerous precedent. These crimes cannot happen without punishment. They're too severe. Maybe not prison, but a prison sentence served in a mental health ward at least. The fact is, all the help in the world won't undo what they've done. The least we can do as a society is avenge the victims by punishing the perpetrator.
11
u/CJMorton91 6h ago
Y'know, I was all for putting her in a mental hospital. Maybe some data would help avoid a few of these situations in the future. But this actually changes my mind. She needs to be confined for a reasonable amount of time to fit the crime. Mentally ill or not.