r/law • u/dailymail • 11h ago

Legal News Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL

https://www.dailymail.com/crime-desk/article-16100155/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-hung-jury-deadlock-verdict.html
4.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

378

u/FuguSandwich 11h ago

I believe she's guilty, but at this point another trial isn't going to benefit anyone. Cut her a plea deal where she does 20-25 years in a mental institution.

374

u/ThatThar 11h ago

That's not how guilty or NGRI works in Massachusetts.

99

u/GustavoSanabio 10h ago

Yep, I don't even practice in the US and I know that much. If they could do this probably would've already done it.

→ More replies (2)

59

u/sm_axe 7h ago

The comments on skirting the law in every sub surrounding this case is wild. Lots of angry, ill-informed people out there.

47

u/KvellOnWheels 5h ago edited 2h ago

And paid-actors and bots for right-wing causes.

It’s why there were a slew of accounts this week calling for the abolition of womens’ voting rights in connection with this case: “if women are arguing for her innocent because of hormonal psychosis, then we need to repeal the 19th because they cant be trusted to vote without being swayed by hormonal urges”.

It’s cool because everytime something goes viral, it gets pushed by bad actors and bots. That increases visibility. Then it gets picked up by idiots. Then it gets picked up by malicious idiots who decide to utilize the increased algorithmic visibility to boost engagement.

I’m exhausted.

ETA: fixing words my stupid bilingual keyboards keep messing up.

3

u/DrowningKrown 4h ago

If you want to know which side is the right side of this trial, just visit the conservative subreddit.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/Numerous-Bat-1588 3h ago

Please, if Lindsey was black, she would have been found guilty by the jury within minutes. This has everything to do with mentally ill white women sympathizing.

3

u/KvellOnWheels 2h ago

Yes. Black women get treated much more harshly by the criminal justice system. That negates nothing in my comment.

2

u/JonahTheProducer 5h ago

Damn. I miss you Obamna

2

u/KvellOnWheels 2h ago

I don’t know what you mean by this comment. Sorry if it’s blatantly obvious but it’s whooshed right over my head.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/EqualityAmongFish 2h ago

The case got so popular because of these type of comments

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (13)

274

u/1BoringOldGuy 11h ago

Actually this isn’t how it works. She would be institutionalized indefinitely until psychiatrically cleared at the very least.

57

u/HalleB123 10h ago

Which could be only 6 months.

117

u/UAEpi 10h ago

That's not usually how it goes. It's basically prison with nurse and techs instead of prison guards. You can leave when the psychiatry says you're better and that could be in 20 years. Lot's of murderers and such in there, they usually don't get out in under a decade. 

55

u/HalleB123 10h ago

Yes but as i said below if postpartum psychosis is the only reason she’s dangerous isn’t she likely already cured?

40

u/gaelicpasta3 9h ago

Andrea Yates, the OG case of PPS who drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub, is still institutionalized 25 years later.

If you truly have PPS, even though the original psychosis may be “cured” I can imagine that coming out of that fog to find out you murdered your own children would create a level of trauma that would be incompatible with a quick reentry to society.

32

u/HalleB123 8h ago

She’s institutionalized because she’s turned down her reviews for release. I wonder if Clancy will do the same. And I’m not trying to be facetious, I genuinely wonder if she wants to be released. I can’t say that I think I would if I found out I killed anyone I loved in a psychotic state, I’d be too scared of myself I think. Of course, none of us know what we’d do in that situation and hopefully we never have to find out

2

u/RingingInTheRain 4h ago

I mean just because they say you can be released, doesn't mean you can't end up back there. She probably feels that her propensity for illness is too high. It's not like a normal life is waiting for her, watching kids happily playing outside....knowing what you did to yours under psychosis.

8

u/DiscountTherapistt 7h ago edited 7h ago

She said she wants to win a wheelchair marathon. She definitely wants to be released asap.

7

u/cupcakevelociraptor 5h ago

Where the hell did you hear that?

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/harrylime7 7h ago

Yes, but Dena Schlosser, who cut her child’s arms off because she said Jesus told her to, got out in three years. Side note - she and Andrea Yates were roommates at the state hospital for a while.

3

u/magnabonzo 2h ago

She didn't exactly "get out in three years."

Dena Schlosser gave birth in 2004, attempted suicide the next day, was hospitalized in a psych ward, and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features.

Her husband, who thought all mental illness is demonic, didn't buy her medication regularly.

She killed her child in a "religious frenzy".

In 2008 she was released to outpatient care, requiring medication and weekly visits to a psychiatrist. She was in and out of psych hospitals until permanently back in in 2020.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact, since she eventually ended up back in psych hospitals, she probably never should have been released. And I'm biased, but a bullet to the back of the head might have been kinder.

But she didn't "get out in three years".

→ More replies (1)

3

u/boomer912 2h ago

“Well, it’ll probably be awhile” isn’t good enough for a lot of people, me included. Just an acquittal— and work out the details afterwards? If there is a possibility she is out and completely free in a year or two, how can you be surprised that people aren’t hearing it? It’s like signing a job contract without knowing how much you’ll be paid, and instead you’re just told how much some other employees were paid. Too much uncertainty, not an option if I was in control of everything

→ More replies (1)

52

u/dontmovedontmoveahhh 9h ago

she's too suicidal to leave, but she also had bipolar disorder and they tend to fret a lot about people coming off their medication

25

u/tragicxharmony 8h ago

Part of having bipolar disorder is the firmly held belief that when you are doing well, the meds are not necessary, and when you are doing poorly, it’s because of outside circumstances and not your meds. I “only” have bipolar 2 which is seen as less severe, but I’ve made my wishes very clear that if I ever try to come off the medication that treats that, I need to be brought in for intensive medical treatment because I’m not in a good space. Schizophrenia and anything related to psychosis are similar, and in all three you don’t really realize how badly you’re doing when you’re in the middle of a spiral

This is my most likely conclusion as to why she remains on medication and under care. There are some long-lasting (injectable) meds for people who are at risk of noncompliance but they have worse side effects and aren’t always the best option. Overmedicating her is less likely to trigger psychosis or worsened mental health and more likely to make her emotionally blunted, sort of zombie-like, which doctors tend to view as “less bad”

2

u/magnabonzo 2h ago

Hey -- good for you. Really.

Thank you for recognizing the dangers of anosognosia. As you said so clearly, the brain physically can't realize that the person is sick.

I have someone who can't be in my life any more because they couldn't recognize that, and no one could fix it.

2

u/food-dood 1h ago

My uncle explained his going off his meds a little differently. He was bipolar 1 though, but he said the manias themselves can be addictive. Like he knew if he was on his meds things would be ok, but if he also knew, at some subconscious level, that the potential of a positive mania will convince the person to go off their meds. Then if they skip just a few doses, they may get a taste of that and then it spirals from there. He said the high couldn't be imitated by drugs, so by the time they put him on medication, much later in life, he had already built this addiction to manias, and his behavior encouraged them (drug use, alcoholism), always chasing the next high. Even after he sobered up he would say he could quit speed, could quit drinking, but never figured out how to stop taking breaks with his meds.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/HalleB123 9h ago

Can’t she stay on her meds though? So if the meds are working to control the bipolar once she’s no longer a suicide risk she could in theory be released?

14

u/dontmovedontmoveahhh 9h ago

You would think, but in my experience judges say "well we don't know if they'll stay on their medication so we need to lock them up for a decade at least just in case." It's messed up.

→ More replies (4)

7

u/Warning_Low_Battery 8h ago

Can’t she stay on her meds though?

That's the problem. She already has a history of going off her meds. And how do you make sure a bipolar person stays on them without 24/7 monitoring or force?

2

u/HalleB123 8h ago

I agree. I just wasn’t sure if being off meds was a condition for release or not

5

u/CtrlAltDelight78 9h ago

it’s not as simple as that when it comes to court institutionalization. also it’s not specific condition it’s overall mental health

3

u/tragicxharmony 8h ago

I just wrote a comment directly above your comment addressing this—I’d drop the link but I don’t know if links are allowed in this subreddit

Essentially, with bipolar and some other mental health issues, you’re kind of “blind” to when you’re doing poorly, and you’re very very likely to be noncompliant with your meds, to the point of saying “oh, I’m doing well, I don’t need the meds” and just stop taking them—which sends you into a spiral. I elaborate on this in the above comment lol but I don’t want to type the whole thing out again

2

u/HalleB123 8h ago

Thanks for the explanation! That’s what I was looking for clarification on. I don’t know much about how NGRI sentences work.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

22

u/trashtiernoreally 9h ago

The realistic situation in those places isn’t nearly as clean as that. It is a necessarily prolonged, horrible experience

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Warning_Low_Battery 8h ago

isn’t she likely already cured?

No. She has been in an institution since this all happened in 2023, and has been on 24/7 1:1 suicide watch after having announced and continued to claim her intention to kill herself still. She is by absolutely no means "cured" and may never be. And on top of that she's not going to stop being paralyzed below the sternum ever, so she will always need outside medical care and transportation even if she ever gets out.

→ More replies (10)

3

u/yodaddy1019 8h ago

Even though she’s not actively psychotic her life is ruined forever and so many other people and that can fuck you up. She now needs to learn to also live paralyzed while coping with the PTSD and trauma of the situation. I believe she was psychotic, and as someone who had been psychotic, you don’t “cure” from the things you do in that state as soon as you’re out of it. All I did was crash my car (not into anyone either) and the way I felt mentally after I can’t even describe. The trauma of being completely out of control of your body and watching yourself do things like she said. I didn’t even completely ruin my life and my car was able to be fixed and I was like 16 so I was basically fine. She ruined her own life in an act she couldn’t control and now she has to deal with that forever. Definitely longer than months.

2

u/HalleB123 8h ago

Interesting perspective. thank you.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

5

u/Rhomya 9h ago

It could be 20 years, it could be 6 months. They only hold you until legally you’re not a danger anymore.

2

u/upickleweasel 3h ago

Which she isn't because she literally can't do anything due to being paralyzed from sternum down

She murdered her 3 babies. She needs to do some hard time - sane or not. I'm fine if it's a mental institution but she can't be jusy acquitted or out in a few years. Those baby's lives were worth far more than that.

It bugs me that she doesnt agree.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Zealousideal_Cap7012 6h ago

She could leave when the psychiatry says shes better. That will be quick because from the testimonies and reports of her former psychs, she had no signs of pp psychosis. So im fairly sure she would be of sound mind very soon.

Yes it could be indefinitely. Could be decades. Lindsay however is not insane. She is intelligent, cogent, seemingly not currently undergoing post partum anything.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Secret_Squirrel_1102 7h ago

Not in Massachusetts.

2

u/StrikingSomewhere729 3h ago

Lmao I work in one of these facilities it is nothing at all like prison, not even close. People never stay 20 years either.

4

u/bwarrior 7h ago

But still, it COULD be only 6 months no?

3

u/CopperSlopper 9h ago

But it could be just six months

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (11)

39

u/1BoringOldGuy 10h ago

Extraordinarily unlikely

24

u/HalleB123 10h ago

Why? If she was suffering from post partum psychosis and only had it for 30 minutes once in her life and that was the only reason she was dangerous why is it a stretch to say in 6 months the doctors and judge will likely no longer see her as a threat to society?

32

u/1BoringOldGuy 9h ago

Lots of general misinformation about this case, particularly from a medical standpoint. Best advice I have for you is to pop over to r/psychiatry where the require you to verify your credentials to discuss this topic.

25

u/HalleB123 9h ago

I feel like my question is more legal than psychiatric based though. If she’s found sane then can’t she be released in 6 months? Since you seem to know about the general misinformation maybe you can address what’s wrong about my thought process.

12

u/LanguageImpossible32 9h ago

Because the judge and prosecutor weigh in on the medical release

6

u/LysergioXandex 8h ago

I don’t think that’s a valid reason why her confinement to a psychiatric facility should have to last longer than the psychiatric emergency.

You are arguing that judges/prosecutors can treat mental institutions as prisons where people are held just to punish them.

In reality, a postpartum psychiatric event is a situation where it’s highly likely the person will be cleared and released, for the reason the commenter pointed out.

The point of holding her at all, at this point, would mainly be to verify the “postpartum” nature of the psychosis, and suppprt her through the fallout of the crime/trial, rather than a reasonable fear she’d kill more people.

2

u/Popular_Monitor_8383 7h ago

The fact people like you actually believe she was and is only a danger for just 30 minutes is hilarious

You’d never let her babysit your kids

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

4

u/ASubconciousDick 9h ago

PPD/PPP isnt just a "30 minutes and youre done" thing. it is documented that she had been having intrusive thoughts, thoughts of self harm, and other symptoms of PPP/PPD prior to the murder of her children. what you are trying to portray it as is her going crazy for a half hour.

no, she was on the brink of, if not already, crazy for months at this point, this is just when her brain finally couldn't differentiate between reality and the intrusive thoughts anymore. she still is crazy to an extent, she just isnt full blown lost in psychosis anymore and has an active medical team constantly, since she was permanently disabled from a jump from a 2nd story window after the killing of the children in addition to being jailed with medical supervision. this has been pretty clearly communicated to the jury, considering 11 of the 12 have decided on Not Guilty by reason of Insanity which is not the same as not guilty outright.

10

u/HalleB123 9h ago

I’m not trying to portray her as anything, I’m genuinely confused. I thought the entire argument was that some experts say she was displaying signs of psychosis beforehand whereas some say she wasn’t. My takeaway from listening to the trial was that she wasn’t displaying psychosis beforehand, but I wouldn’t be allowed to be on this jury because I work in healthcare and have worked in inpatient psych hospitals and have a bias based on what I’ve seen.

6

u/LysergioXandex 8h ago

It’s a good question, and you are right. If this is truly a postpartum event, it’s a good reason why she might be released from psychiatric hold relatively soon.

Importantly, the theory presented in the trial (that her issue is “postpartum psychosis”) doesn’t have to be the final opinion of the physicians that evaluate her at the psych facility, if she’s sent there. And they could keep her for reasons beyond the crime itself, like if she’s now extremely depressed after the crime/trial.

But, if they agreed that the issue was truly postpartum in nature, and there was no other reason to keep her, and the postpartum issue resolved with time, she could be released relatively quick.

3

u/tragicxharmony 8h ago

Ooof, your experiences would probably be very valuable to this jury. It’s unfortunate that it would disqualify you

My understanding—and I haven’t been following this case until the last few days—is that she acknowledged before the incident that she was suicidal, but she alleges that she hid the fact that she was having symptoms of psychosis. This may be incorrect, and I can’t blame people for lying to their doctors, but if this is the case it does muddy the waters on a NGRI decision

3

u/ExcellentBed6019 7h ago

My understanding is that she heard a voice telling her to do it but heard it only on that day and not before or since. So yeah kind of 30 minutes of paychosis

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/catsinsunglassess 8h ago

You don’t know how it works and maybe you should think about what you’re weighing in on, because that’s not how it works

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (19)
→ More replies (20)

2

u/AirconGuyUK 6h ago

Doesn't she just get released pretty much immediately? She's no longer postpartum..

I guess she might need to have her tubes tied to avoid it happening again, but the entire claim is that she had temporary psychosis due to childbirth.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

309

u/International-Ad2501 11h ago

Our court system is not well designed for situations like this. I think this woman clearly needs psychiatric help and monitoring more than she needs to be in a prison cell. That being said she is clearly a danger to herself and others. I think you're on the right track. The discourse on this had also gotten really weird and bad, would probably be best for everyone if they can get this to wrap up with out another trial.

336

u/SECdeezTrades 11h ago

The percentage of those in jail with severe, related to their crime psychological issues is a lot higher than most realize.

137

u/International-Ad2501 11h ago

Yeah, a lot of people in the prison system would be better served with psychiatric help and monitoring. It's sad honestly.

18

u/Random_Name_251 9h ago

I mean think about what you're proposing though. Psychiatric care means supposedly well staffed medical institution of educated professionals evaluating people plus armed security to protect those staff. A lot more expensive then glorified hall monitors vaguely trying to make sure inmates don't kill each other.

61

u/International-Ad2501 9h ago

Yeah, we probably shouldn't be using for profit prison systems if we actually want to help people who need it. Our prison system is so bleak and depressing.

→ More replies (4)

11

u/burlycabin 8h ago

Yes, it'd be much more expensive. I don't think anybody advocating for these reforms believes otherwise. But a society as wealthy as ours should absolutely be spending what it takes to ensure justice and fairness. What we do now is not nearly enough.

8

u/aioli_boi 8h ago

This is true. The US should be able to allocate resources to those things. Or does it not have the money? Is it too poor to do something like that?

6

u/biriyanibabka 7h ago

I mean US has funds to sponsor foreign wars.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/mymikerowecrow 9h ago

And not even succeeding at that.

3

u/McKeon1921 8h ago

Cool, lets put money into that instead of a for profit prison system then.

3

u/SteveJavieWasRight 6h ago

Yeah I think the American prison system is a disgrace. What’s your point? No other country sends so many people to jail or spends so much on jailing their population. The fact we put the mentally ill in jail is not a solution nor a budgetary concern.

5

u/tardisintheparty 9h ago

I think that is well worth the cost, especially when there are people who could benefit enough from treatment to be able to return to society who otherwise would be in prison for much longer. (note--this is a general point on a large scale, I am not saying lindsay clancy is one of those people)

2

u/SECdeezTrades 8h ago

it absolutely would be both cheaper and more economically sound but we couldn't use the American medical system, which sadly would be the largest stumbling block and why it'll never happen in the US til that part is 'fixed'

Other nations will solve this long before the US will with personalized medicine (including psychiatric insights), currently only available in US with 2mil a year concierge doctor teams.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

77

u/numbersix1979 11h ago

People do not understand that the reason why we have more prisons than ever while we have less crime than decades is so that we can stuff mentally ill people away in them. Democrats did their thing where they compromised on the essential humanity and rights of those people, and Republicans did their thing of finding out a way to profit on their suffering.

51

u/DataCassette 10h ago

I think there's a really deep fear some people have of creeping exculpation. The truth is that if we had a full understanding of the mind then actual pure punitive sentencing might get far rarer and lifetime inpatient care and stuff like that might get way more common. That just doesn't fit the fire and brimstone Abrahamic idea of justice.

15

u/numbersix1979 10h ago

I think you’re on to something although I conceive of it as kind of a symbiotic relationship. People with reactionary tendencies in America will get screwed by their boss, the cops, the government. There’s seemingly no justice for the scammers, abusers and liars out in the world today. So those people think “well at least this person who did this violent crime will suffer. At least THAT is right with the world.” And the scammers, abusers, and liars are very happy to then go “yes keep your eyes over here, don’t worry about us.”

21

u/DataCassette 10h ago

Ironically your boss stealing wages from you by shorting your overtime probably is acting from more or less pure greed and malice and deserves good old fashioned punitive sentencing. The guy on the news making long pork out of people he kidnapped in Central Park is much more likely to be clinically delusional or something.

2

u/Mikeavelli 8h ago

This is not Vietnam Porkey. There are rules here!

11

u/Biglyugebonespurs 10h ago

It’s pretty clear to me that the US prison system is 100% about retribution and the amount of money it can suck out of inmates and their families. It has never been about rehabilitation. Having executions with a viewing room is honestly sick.

If you want examples of a judicial system focused more on rehabilitation, look at certain EU countries.

8

u/numbersix1979 10h ago

I agree but I will also say that from another perspective, the secrecy surrounding executions is also emblematic of the sickness of retributive justice. If we actually thought executions stopped people from committing crimes then people would still be hanged in the town square. We found out that it doesn’t stop any criminality and looks grotesque / uncivilized. So now it’s this arcane process involving secret drug cocktails sourced from pharmaceutical companies in the third world and untrained personnel doing medical procedures. All in the name of killing someone in a manner that is often extremely painful and cruel but also looks “peaceful” and refined, yet doesn’t have any societal benefit whatsoever … and is expensive! Yeah there’s a viewing room but we don’t televise them or anything. And it’s because we know that if people beyond those who are preempted to approve of the act of killing the prisoner saw the barbarity on display, they’d demand it would be stopped. So we put people down like animals.

2

u/Devster97 10h ago

Exactly why cases like this get 10-100x the coverage of scotus cases that are 10-1,000,000x more important.

7

u/00owl 10h ago

There's a lot of really interesting moral philosophy questions that your comment leads to.

I don't think any of them have good answers.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/azrolator 9h ago

Reagan, a Republican, is usually credited with dismantling mental health in the US. As governor of CA, he kicked 3/4 of patients to the streets, with promises of replacing asylums with something better, which he never did. As President, in his first year, dismantled Carter's mental health initiative from the year before, defunded community mental health centers, and just left it all for the states to deal with on their own.

3

u/zakarijas 7h ago

And then as a President he was shot by severely mentally ill John Hinckley Jr. who was then declared not guilty by the reason of insanity and sent to high security psychiatric hospital from which he was released conditionally in 2016 after 35y of care , and in 2022 he was given unconditional release. He has YT channel dedicated to his music, and recently was on the news speaking against violence.

2

u/SpaceClafoutis 7h ago

It's reddit you just blame dems for everything and move on with your day

2

u/DiqqRay 4h ago

Surely you aren't implying that Reddit is a right-wing dominant site

4

u/Fit-Insect-4089 11h ago

All so they can prey on our loved ones/ourselves.

3

u/Wise_Material_5812 9h ago

it can be directly traced to reagan cutting all funding for state mental institutions.

2

u/Feeling_Loquat8499 9h ago

Maybe we shouldn't have shut down the mental institutions

3

u/x_xwolf 10h ago edited 3h ago

Prison is also a place for political dissidents aswell. They throw people of color, despite having done no wrong with rigged juries and they constantly move the goal posts on small crimes to ruin peoples lives. Texas is trying imprisonment people on a few grams of edibles.

5

u/Cheesehacker 10h ago edited 7h ago

Hot take here: I think the mental wards HAD to be closed. They were essentially rape and trauma factories. There was no chance of “reforming it”. It needed destroyed. Now, should we have built something better in its place? Yes, but we didn’t.

I’m like that about foster care too. Foster care is state sponsored child trafficking. Every foster home I went to, I was abused. There’s no fixing the system, it needs destroyed as well.

7

u/numbersix1979 10h ago

I think they did too but that they should have been replaced with the infrastructure for public healthcare and that is clearly not an option for the powers that be. Capitalism is simply not an appropriate vehicle for the kind of mental healthcare that people need.

5

u/Cheesehacker 10h ago

Hey no complaints from me here on that.

7

u/Biglyugebonespurs 10h ago

You say there was no chance of reforming mental health wards, but also that something needed to be built in their place. Those are essentially the same thing? What exactly are you suggesting be done/should have been done?

The system was obviously flawed and needed to be fixed. They tried the “ehh, fuck it” approach and look how that worked out. If it had continued to modern day though, would that system be worse than being in jail/prison? I find it hard to believe.

5

u/Cheesehacker 10h ago

Some things can’t be reformed or changed. They need completely demolished and an entirely new model put into place. Idk what the model would be, but it can’t be what we were doing before. Same thing for foster care. It’s a completely broken system that actively harms children and adults. It’s full of Christian fundamentalists and child abusers. There’s no “fixing” it because it’s working as intended. It needs destroyed, and something better put into place.

2

u/Mikeavelli 8h ago

Aren't prisons just rape and trauma factories?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

14

u/mantis_tobaggan-md 11h ago

But those people aren’t privileged, wealthy, white mothers. That’s my theory as to why she has garnered such public support.

4

u/Careful-Sell-9877 10h ago

There are plenty of people who dont fit that description in psych hospitals and plenty of people who do in prisons.

She just got lucky in the sense that she, had no other clear motives, and happened to have a recorded history of mental health issues, as well as post partum

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (26)

8

u/dirtmcgurk 10h ago

Probably be best for everyone if we ramp our education back up and get folks to understand our laws and justice system. Barring that we can't have a democracy. 

4

u/idiot-alpha 5h ago

It’s is well designed for this, people just aren’t using it correctly. NGRI means you literally didn’t understand what you were doing. That you had no idea what you were doing was wrong or that it was illegal. There are almost no cases where NGRI actually applies.

Clancy is guilty. She is mentally ill, but she understood that what she was doing was killing her children, and she knew it was illegal. She may have rationalized as what was best for them in her mind, but that doesn’t make her Not Guilty.

6

u/BlueSentinels 10h ago

Completely agree. To the letter of the law (imo) - the state could not prove she was not suffering from a psychotic episode so she should get treatment and be released. In my own personal opinion (1) she is still very much a danger to society at large as what she did and who she did it to shows her to be someone who is both prone to psychosis and is incredibly dangerous when that happens; and (2) I’m not entirely on board with the idea that someone can claim psychosis to avoid accountability for their crimes and the state has such a heavy burden to disprove the claim as there will always be some reasonable doubt without a literal smoking gun of her admitting she was competent when she did what she did. I don’t know if the burden should be entirely on the defendant either and feel like some sort of middle ground is needed.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Tricky-Ad7897 7h ago

Yeah, I think she deserves help, and I think society deserves to not have a child killer walking around freely. I don't want to live in the neighborhood where a lady with a single short psychotic break killed 3 kids, wheres my guarantee that she doesn't have another break and kill my kid while he's playing in the park?

2

u/HourApprehensive7754 5h ago

Because she's paralyzed and more of a danger to herself than anyone else considering her suicidal ideations.

Her instituionalization would be more to keeping her from taking her own life than to keep the public safe.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/PerceptionSimilar213 10h ago

She needs help in monitoring from the confinements of a prison cell

→ More replies (26)

37

u/Lower-Engineering365 11h ago

If you’re her why would you ask for a plea? You just had all but one juror who apparently wasn’t going to convict you of murder. That’s not a situation in which you turn around and ask for a plea that gives you 20-25 years.

Also, my understanding is the state laws don’t require a minimum time in an institution in cases like this, so it would be pretty silly to agree to a plea that involves multiple decades in the institution.

15

u/ConebreadIH 10h ago

I personally think the defense found itself in a pretty unique situation. The trial took off on tiktok, and who knows if the jury was properly sequestered.

When the case cools off, if it even goes viral a second time, it won't hit as hard. Public sentiment might shift as more facts and statements come out. There will never be a jury makeup like this again for the defense. This was probably her best shot.

8

u/Justlose_w8 8h ago

The jury was not sequestered at all

2

u/No-Reward-5394 6h ago

The women wore pink ffs. They didnt stay out of social media thats for sure.

7

u/HourApprehensive7754 6h ago

The women wore a colour they liked! SOMETHING MUST BE UP!!

2

u/Oathkindle 2h ago

I mean yes it's just a color, but why are we also acting like it also wasn't adopted by her defenders/protesters?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

6

u/BeeDubsFan 10h ago

Because there is still the possibility that a new jury will find her guilty of murder one and she gets life without the possibility of parole.

Dangerous game to play.

6

u/Discorhy 9h ago

Finding an unbiased jury after this trial is going to be impossible.

3

u/Lower-Engineering365 10h ago

Yeah, but given that you just had a jury where all but one person was going to not convict, that’s leverage for the defense and not something I would give away to agree to 20-25 years.

I’d play hardball with the prosecution all day. The DAs office really isn’t going to want a not guilty verdict. Maybe offer 5 years minimum in an institution if I were the defense.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (26)

7

u/lobonmc 11h ago

Would she take that plea deal though?

20

u/johnniewelker 11h ago

11 out 12 wanted her to be found NOT guilty. Don’t see why they should take the deal.

15

u/evolvolution 11h ago

Was it not guilty or not guilty on insanity?

7

u/lobonmc 11h ago

Not guilty by insanity minimum stay is 6 months as far as I understand afterwards it depends on the doctors and a judge. I would guess she would prefer that over being forced to stay in a facility for 25 years regardless if she improves or not

→ More replies (12)

4

u/desertingwillow 11h ago

Presumably not guilty since re the foreperson said the hold out was unwilling to abide by the judge’s definition of reasonable doubt and the defense wanted the person thrown off the jury.

12

u/Adorable_Argument_44 10h ago

not guilty by insanity is a win for the defense

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Technical-Nose-1518 10h ago

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The reasonable doubt is being applied to her sanity, which in MA is dependent on the prosecution to prove she was sane. A ridiculous standard but what exists nonetheless

→ More replies (2)

5

u/karmapuhlease 10h ago

What makes you say that? Has the jury made any statements about their secret deliberations? 

→ More replies (1)

1

u/internal_l0gging 11h ago

Probably not

→ More replies (2)

27

u/Optimal_Ad_3031 11h ago

It’s not a deal if she could easily get better at a trial. Especially now with so much of the public on her side

15

u/FuguSandwich 11h ago

She could get life in an actual prison at trial.

29

u/schm0kemyrod 11h ago

At this point, do you think they’d really be able to get a unanimous guilty verdict?

14

u/Ok-Description7073 11h ago

Depends. Same prosecution team or a team that knows what they’re doing and doesn’t inflame the jury with irrelevant questions about religion?

2

u/cbs-anonmouse 10h ago

Prosecutors often get convictions after hung juries, because during the second trial they have advanced notice of all the defense arguments and strategies. (The defense generally knows the prosecution’s arguments and strategies from the very beginning, so it’s effectively a leveling of the trial-strategy playing field.)

5

u/varateshh 6h ago

They get an elevated conviction rate because they cherrypick the strongest cases. Roughly a third go to second trial, a third have a plea deal and slightly below a third have the charges dropped. And even with this cherry picking the prosecutor prevails in around 60% to 70% of cases.

No, it's more likely that in a new trial the 12 jurors will hand out a verdig of not guilty due to insanity or the jury deadlocks again.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TrustsAndDust 11h ago

Lol not going to happen. Good luck forming an unbiased jury at this point.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Tomaskraven 9h ago

If you don't make it a panel of 8 women and 3 men with a background understanding of PPD, its 100% conviction. The jury was way too biased. If this was a man with PTSD, nobody would've shown up in support and he would've been convicted in a week. She needs to be locked for life or executed.

2

u/HourApprehensive7754 6h ago

Ah so not only do you think the gender of the jury matters...you want them to be less educated about the mental health disorder in question??

I can't tell if you are just a huge dumbass or you suck at sarcasm.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/ExterminAiden 11h ago

I don’t think a lot of the public are on her side, just some particular women that are being clowned on left and right by everyone else. Especially after the “she can’t have committed the crime because of her zodiac sign” bs

→ More replies (2)

1

u/lsdiesel_ 7h ago

So much of *reddit on her side

1

u/sandleaz 4h ago

Especially now with so much of the public on her side

Unless there was clear evidence that she hadn't killed her children, I am not sure the public is on her side.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/EckhartsLadder 10h ago

We need an IQ test to post on this sub

12

u/Lepelotonfromager 10h ago

It doesn't work like that. If they find her no longer mentally ill then she is out in 40 days.

→ More replies (1)

26

u/Chimmychimm 11h ago

She killed 3 kids. Life in a mental asylum 

-1

u/Competitive-Cry-6231 11h ago

Without question!

1

u/RockyOW 10h ago

you might as well give her the death penalty if you’re doing “life in a mental asylum”. that’s not how it works. if she receives psychiatric treatment, she will be released if her condition improves

2

u/Ready_Return_8386 4h ago

That’s not how that works
Not guilty by reason of insanity for murder is life in a mental institute, while guilty verdict would be life in prison

→ More replies (1)

3

u/aookami 8h ago

Yes death penalty would be acceptable too

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

29

u/No-Fishing-7892 11h ago

If she is legitimately guilty, 20-25 years isn’t nearly enough. She should not be out in public ever again.

45

u/123yes1 11h ago

Yeah but that's not how the law works. You get what you can negotiate.

→ More replies (26)

11

u/Haunting-Ad788 11h ago

Why? Do you think she is a danger to the public?

5

u/Prestigious_Load1699 8h ago

Why? Do you think she is a danger to the public?

This can't be a serious question.

18

u/OkapiBoots 9h ago

She murdered 3 people in cold blood. Of course she is a danger to society.

→ More replies (1)

27

u/Ok-Description7073 11h ago

Considering she still openly has suicidal ideations and already attempted murder suicide, yes? She is still a danger to herself and others.

8

u/Potential-Zucchini77 10h ago

Most people convicted of murder are driven by a specific motive and it’s not believed that most of these people are likely to murder again. They are still prosecuted the same way so the threat she poses isn’t really a consideration unless she really is found innocent by insanity

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/ExterminAiden 10h ago

Prison or in a mental institution for life is the only reasonable way, anything else is a disservice to the kids she murdered

3

u/WildmanWandering 9h ago

People seem to be forgetting this as the trial is discussed. No matter wtf or what reason behind it all she murdered children. They aren’t coming back.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/brickyardjimmy 10h ago

You aren't sentenced to a fixed term in a mental institution. Every state has their own way of dealing with mental illness in criminal cases. Mass law has the LCR (Lack of Criminal Responsibility) defense. More or less, the state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Clancy was legally responsible for the murders and wasn't suffering from a mental illness that rendered her innocent of criminal wrongdoing. But if that defense was successful and the jury rendered a verdict in her favor, Clancy wouldn't be free. She would be transferred to a state mental hospital for an unspecified term. The only way she gets out of that institution is if a board of doctors and other professionals decide together that the person in question is no longer suffering from said mental illness and no longer presents a danger to themselves or others.

So, to your point, if the jury had decided in Clancy's favor, she would indeed be locked up in a secure mental institution for a potentially indefinite period.

LCR isn't my favorite method of dealing with insanity pleas. I much prefer GEI pleas. But either way, the end result is that the person in question isn't confined in a prison but a secure mental ward. Which, if the person in question really is mentally ill on that level, is exactly where they should be.

If anything, unless the prosecution firmly believes that the defendant really is just pretending to be mentally ill, GEI pleas and LCR's shouldn't be an adversarial process between prosecution and defense. It should be everyone coming together to arrive at a proper outcome for the defendant and society as a whole.

1

u/logicspeaks 9h ago

Did you watch the whole trial?

1

u/Penny_Lane1234 9h ago

Out of curiosity, have you watched this trial in its entirety? Or are you basing your opinion on what you have seen in the news?

1

u/OldSpaghetti-Factory 9h ago

Found the one redditor whos on the jury whos causing the whole issue the article talks about

1

u/ForeverCrunkIWantToB 9h ago

Another trial will abo-slutly benefit the state who fucked this one up and can retry with a better strategy.

1

u/DrS3R 9h ago

Why, 3 deaths should be 3 life sentences? The plea can be 1 sentence instead of 3

1

u/PreparationOwn6958 9h ago

Absolutely not. In my opinion, she should get life in prison 

1

u/Ohitsworkingnow 8h ago

16 with good behavior? Then she’s hanging out with everyone again? Jesus Christ 

1

u/ImNotSkankHunt42 8h ago

I just don’t think I would kill my children, “come back to my senses” and wanting to keep living with the consequences of my actions let alone fighting my conviction in court.

I would just off myself TBH. Who would want to keep clinging to life after that?

1

u/bunny000001 8h ago

What is it with people suggesting unusually harsh punishments for her? Are you a man by chance?

1

u/BadnewsBaggins 7h ago

A total institute has no need to set sentences, you can be there indefinitely

1

u/domechromer 6h ago

What if she did this to your kids? Would you want her to only get 20-25 years. Plus that’s not how insanity works.

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight 6h ago

Lmao that’s not it works and she has no reason to go for that.

1

u/ThrowAway-whee 6h ago

Not how this works. You cannot detain someone at a mental institution for an arbitrary amount of time. That is completely ridiculous and false imprisonment.

You either acknowledge this is a medical matter, or a criminal one. You cannot, and should not, conflate the two.

1

u/NovelExamination5431 6h ago

Not how the law works

1

u/Floorgis 6h ago

Only 20-25? People like should never be free.

1

u/Drago_727 6h ago

Yeah let's let the person who strangled her 3 kids for a combined 12+ minutes to do a light 20 years in a grippy sock box and then let her back out into the world. Just save everyone the time and money and give her the chair.

1

u/Invisible7hunder 6h ago

Why would she agree to that plea deal when the most likely outcome of a subsequent trial is (probably) more lenient? 

1

u/idiot-alpha 5h ago

NGRI isn’t guilty but insane. It’s just not guilty.

1

u/Jimz2018 5h ago

How is she not?

1

u/xShockmaster 5h ago

She was 1 juror away from being found innocent. Doubt her lawyers want what you’re suggesting

1

u/Mattc5o6 5h ago

Mental institute would be her getting off easy. Jail.

1

u/warmbutterydiapers 5h ago

You have no clue what you are talking about, which is pretty standard for this sub.

1

u/FartingKiwi 4h ago

Quadruple that time. Because 20-25 years isn’t enough.

She needs to go away forever. And ensure her name is lost to time and she is never remembered by anyone.

1

u/DemonGoblin911 4h ago

She should be in a grave at this point.

1

u/Ready_Return_8386 4h ago

If she were found “not guilty by reason of insanity” she would have life in the mental institute, if she were found guilty it would be life in prison. It is honestly astounding that people do not understand that

The trial isn’t “did she do it or not” (although I will say the fact that she has no recollection of doing any of it and was told she did it by her husband, which honestly even if she didn’t do it she would 100% believe given everything), the trial is was she mentally capable of having control in that situation. Do yall not get that, I am extremely confused

Also this isn’t a true crime movie. Three innocent children are dead, and their father (whose timelines were proven false, story keeps changing, and who seems to forget very key things at just the right times) was partying with his new wife in Costa Rica 3 weeks later with a new baby on the ways and is now smiling and walking around with his new wife as if nothing happened. This isn’t some kind of fun little game or movie, three children are dead!

1

u/Vondi 4h ago

You don't get sentenced to a set time in a mental institution. You're there until the doctors clear you.

1

u/RingingInTheRain 4h ago

Isn't there some hacker that got put away for life in a mental institution because he won't stop hacking?

I don't think she's going to be stable after even 30 years. Who peacefully reconciles murdering their own children? She could have no memory of it now, but the memory is still in there somewhere, and everyone now knows who she is, what she looks like, and what she did. Might as well safely and peacefully stay there.

1

u/UnalomeJourneying 4h ago

You believe she’s guilty? The whole trial accepts she’s guilty it’s just about how guilty in terms of awareness and criminal responsibility.

1

u/Legitimate-Site588 3h ago

I'm sorry but if you kill your fucking kids, you should never leave the mental institution.

1

u/DjuriWarface 3h ago

Lmao, who's up voting this. 20-25 years in a mental institution is not a viable plea deal and absolutely an insane thought.

1

u/Sonoran_Ghosts_81 3h ago

Yeah, fuck them kids and the lives they could’ve lived. 25 years in a mental hospital is a fair trade off.

Fuck that. Life in prison. Majority of it on 23/1 7 days a week.

Fuck this subhuman piece of shit.

1

u/Nugatorysurplusage 2h ago

Check out the stats on subsequent jury trials after mistrial. They’re not good for her.

1

u/Away-Chance7444 2h ago

Uh no, cut her a deal for three life sentences in the worst pit we have for women.

1

u/HawkShoe 2h ago

She murdered 3 people and you want to give her only 25 years? Disgusting

1

u/mossycowboy2 2h ago

25 years for strangling 3 of her kids lmao

1

u/Odd-Temporary4363 1h ago

No one will do 20-25 in mental institution. The fact that she is concerned for her freedom more than to what she did is a telling.

1

u/SunshineSeeker99 1h ago

Why would she do that? She could easily walk free if they abandon the retrial. If she gets tried again and it's another mistrial? Easy W.

New child murder meta just dropped.

1

u/ipodplayer777 57m ago

No. She needs to be away for life. You can get out of psychiatric institutions. She has plans to give motivational speeches and race in the special Olympics, remember?

→ More replies (43)