Lindsay Clancy case: was it evil, or severe mental illness?

She slit her own wrists and jumped out of the window afterwards which is why she is now paralysed in a wheelchair. This was obviously a mental breakdown.

I do still think she should go to jail or a mental health facility though.

Yet you'll happily just take her word for it right?

Be careful starting a thread about a baseless sonspiracy thread, there is no evidence to suggest this.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

So not just - Medical condition + diagnosis
but also further criteria relating to the condition and the crime to test how the condition relates to the person’s functioning -

Abnormal mental functioning
Substantial impairment (ie ability to understand conduct, make rational decisions, exercise self-control)
Causal link (ie condition has to be significant factor contributing to the death/s)

To base a verdict not guilty by reason of mental illness based solely on the presence of the illness/diagnosis (if that is what the law says in MA) seems nonsensical.

A very valuable resource, thank you. I hope everybody reads it.

Agree

"I don’t think there’s an argument that she’s innocent, and nobody is saying that"

Most people aren't but there are literally multiple posts on Mumsnet saying she didn't do it/ has been framed etc.

That’s a fair point. I’m not understanding. But when I saw the list of meds the woman was on, my anger was directed at anyone thinking that was sensible.

For those who think she was absolutely in psychosis and did not know what she was doing so is innocent, I wonder if they’d feel the same way and be as understanding if someone killed their children under the same circumstances. I suspect many wouldn’t be as understanding

It’s similar to this country. In the U.K. manslaughter by diminished responsibility is a partial defence that reduces a murder charge to manslaughter on the basis of a recognised medical condition.

The defence have to satisfy the court of 4 elements:

Abnormal mental functioning
Medical condition + diagnosis
Substantial impairment (ie ability to understand conduct, make rational decisions, exercise self-control)
Causal link (ie condition has to be significant factor contributing to the death/s)

Are you asking me?

She won’t be freed though, at least. Just in another facility.

How did you get to anyone with PPD must be found not guilty? Firstly the assertion is that LC was psychotic, not depressed. And responsibility and intent are much more nuanced under the law

Absolutely. Emotive testimony generates a need to hold someone accountable.
The trial is really about whether the person on the stand was truly “responsible” for their deaths or not.

I missed your point that anxiety and depression are excluded, apologies.

So are you saying that under Massachusetts Law if someone has a diagnosis of post partum depression they must automatically be found not guilty of any crime, whatever the degree of the depression, the nature of the crime, their state of mind, the treatment they are on etc? If this is the case then in my view, that is crazy.

As to “It doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or not, the law is the law” , we’re not in a court, we’re having a discussion on MN.

As has no doubt been explained to you already pre-planning does not negate psychosis.

It’s not the case that psychotic patients can’t plan it’s just that their plans are irrational. They tend to channel planning toward ungrounded or belief-driven outcomes.

I’m aware of a case where a man with schizophrenia, who was not taking his meds, made elaborate plans over some time, to kill his gf and her mother hacking one to pieces. He told police they had to be killed because his DP and her mother were witches who were conspiring to kill him.

In this case the treating doctors failed to see the severity of LC’s symptoms despite her attempts to get help. If doctors had diagnosed PPP in time, sadly the deaths and injury could have been avoided.

I think the other parallel we are seeing is how people (including prosecutors sometimes) turn respect/empathy for the victims as a reason to convict (or to decry those who question a conviction). Yes these deaths are terrible - no one is disputing that - but that is not actually pertinent to the question of a defendant's guilt.

You keep making statements which imply that having ANY mental illness means a person must be found not guilty of a crime by reason of their mental illness. It’s just not true, but you sound so confident in stating that it is.

For example, I have diagnosed depression. Years of appointments, medication etc to prove this. If I went to Massachusetts and killed a random person because I felt like it, proof of my mental illness would not stop me being found guilty of first degree murder, would it?

The specifics matter, of how the mental illness affects capacity and the person’s state of mind when they commit the crime. It’s not just black or white, mentally ill = not guilty as you seem to be suggesting.

And apologies if I have misunderstood you, but you do appear to have repeated this idea several times.

And everyone knew that but she still killed their children who she was left alone with