The heartbreaking case of Lindsay Clancy, a mother who strangled her three children to death and has been charged with murder, has dominated world headlines. As a former criminal defense attorney, I must protest that this is insane.
By definition, a person who commits a mass murder, or even a regular old premeditated murder, road rage, or other violent crime “has issues.” Decarlos Brown, Jr. stabbed Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a train because he believed she was reading his mind. Ted Bundy and many other serial killers were notoriously charming. But none of these people were mentally well at the time of their actions.
I am a passionate believer in the rights of the accused to a fair criminal process. But my years as a private criminal defense attorney and Special Public Defender also exposed me to the victims, who were often denied any meaningful legal rights. One purpose of prosecution and incarceration is deterrence — imposing unpleasant consequences to deter potential criminals from violent action in the future. Society has a duty not just to the Lindsay Clancys of the world but to the young children, vulnerable women, elderly, and others who suffer predation by an increasingly “decriminalized” society.
Because when the Left talks of decriminalization, it speaks of ending consequences for criminal behavior, not ending criminality. Indeed, progressive legal policies create more victims and treat criminals as if THEY are victims. Lindsay Clancy was a victim of mental suffering, but that does not excuse the murder of innocent children. If it does, then what will society do to protect the public from the violently mentally ill? Clancy’s options should be the same as all of those who commit murder — a long prison sentence, or a long mental health facility stay. She can’t have it both ways.
This is called “justice.” You don’t get to claim you are too mentally unwell to control your violent behavior and then demand freedom to drift around society. Is Clancy a threat to others, paralyzed and childless? At this juncture, very likely not. But that is only one issue: deterrence and the application of effective legal standards are also at risk.
First of all, what is the legal standard going to be to prove a person is so insane as to be excused from guilt? All states already have such standards, usually concerning the capacity to understand the consequences of one’s actions — which Clancy appears to have possessed. But if Lindsay Clancy can walk free, how many others will invoke mental distress illegitimately as a criminal defense? How many husbands will plot to kill their wives or children, scheming to create a record of mental health struggles? How many killers or rapists will claim they had no self-control, or perhaps even engage in deliberately shocking crimes to fashion their future defense? “I was crazy like Clancy. Just let me go.” Mental illness is subjective, and these jurisprudential hurdles already exist. The Clancy case threatens to move the goalposts even further, protecting criminals at the expense of future victims. Killers mustn’t have it both ways: it is the ultimate moral hazard.
I see many people want to blame society, or physicians who failed to administer meds or therapies to treat Clancy, even imposing civil liability on her doctors. This is simply absurd. This assumes she could have been effectively treated with pharmaceuticals, itself a reflection of the quasi-religious faith moderns have put in chemical “cures.” But the drugs don’t always work, rarely work the same way for all people, and can make things worse — then the doctors would be sued for prescribing the meds rather than none at all. There are no workable standards here, and no firm science to support black-and-white conclusions about medications and their impacts on mental health. There is simply no reliable way to shift responsibility for criminal violence onto other people that does not create more victims.
For those who would dismiss my views based on my male gender, please check your moronic privilege. I’ve heard these arguments ad nauseam over abortion. But when a child is aborted, a father loses their child too. And I have held a human baby in my hands while it took its last breath. The idea that only one gender gets an opinion on ANY issue smacks of insanity and mental illness in its own right — but that’s where today’s toxically tolerant, suicidally empathetic society has driven itself.
I am a man who does not want my wife or daughter — or anyone else’s — raped, tortured, or murdered. I have a right to that opinion, and I will defend that right against any effeminate liberal man who says only HE gets an opinion because he’s backing up baby murder on behalf of women (here I refer to the increasingly common practice of terminating the lives of viable babies who could otherwise live outside the womb: it is infanticide, by any other name). Those same pink men will now say only they can speak for Lindsay Clancy — but they certainly do not speak for her children, or other future victims if this becomes a precedent condoning premeditated murder “under the right psychological conditions.”
I am extremely sympathetic to postpartum depression (PPD). My first wife suffered severe PPD following the birth of our son. It was the opposite of the joy of childbirth: it was pure Hell, and no one seemed to be able to offer relief. It went on for years and ended in our divorce. I tried to support her emotionally and in baby care in every way I could, but I had no cure. But had she killed our son (God forbid), that would hardly have been “fair” to him.
Mental illness merits compassion, support, and treatment. It does not merit normalization, separate standards for citizens for what is deemed acceptable behavior, or excusing violent actions. This is why Lindsay Clancy should be found guilty, or found not guilty by reason of mental illness, and should have consequences for her actions. If not, why should anyone? Every murderer and school shooter is mentally ill. They should be confined to prison or a hospital to protect the public and to send a message to other dangerous felons. That’s how US jurisprudence has sensibly evolved to balance the interests of both victims and perpetrators.
I expect this post may prompt some backlash. I invite comments below.
