Hundreds of Lindsay Clancy supporters, many wearing pink clothing emblazoned with phrases such as “Believe,” “She Needed Help” and “Peace For Lindsay,” gathered Thursday outside the courthouse where she is on trial in the killings of her three children.
Several of the 300 women, and a few men, said Clancy’s story resonated with them and that they wanted to raise awareness about how the mental health system treats women. Clancy’s lawyer does not dispute that she killed the children, but says she should not be held criminally responsible because she was mentally ill.
This is a giant misunderstanding IMO. Being mentally ill is part of who that person is, if it results in criminal actions, the person must be held responsible. Otherwise we can boil the argument down to that we all are influenced by outside forces, and we essentially don’t have free will. And that would make No one responsible for their actions.
For example: “I was angry because I was hungry.”
Should that be a legal defense?
Granted that if she can be successfully treated, that could serve as an argument to reduce punishment, if she is no longer a danger to people around her. And American punishments are generally over the top sociopathic.
But the idea that mental illness should void responsibility is a huge misunderstanding.
I was once personally threatened by someone with a big knife, claiming he was allowed to do it because he was mentally ill.
I explained to him very carefully, that he is not, and if he attacked me, he would go to prison. He was obviously aware of what he was doing, and I managed to talk him down. But he too had this idea that you are not responsible for your actions, if you can claim mental illness.
Part of proving a crime is proving “mens rea”, or “criminal mind.” Not all crimes, but most have to prove that you knew what you were doing was wrong and you chose to do it anyway. The mentally ill defense is to say you couldn’t form that criminal intent. That’s an exceptionally hard thing to prove. If she kept trying to check in because she was afraid she was dangerous, that’s already a sign that she knew she was doing things wrong.
And not guilty by reason of insanity doesn’t mean you get off scot-free. Usually it means commitment to a mental institution. (See: One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.)
And also that mens rea doesn’t apply to all crimes that could be charged. Like “first degree murder” requires intent to kill while “manslaughter” usually requires intent to harm but not necessarily kill. “Reckless endangerment” likely doesn’t require that intent at all, just neglect to prevent a harm.
Those might not be the exact names or criteria of crimes depending on state, but that’s the general idea.
Yes, the exact verbiage depends on the state, but typically that’s the case.
Yes it’s fucked up when there is no help when she knew she was sick, and tried to get help.
We actually have that problem here too, even though we have healthcare for all, psychiatry is constantly short of capacity, and there are long waiting lists.
I mean, the concept of “free will” could be very heavily debated…everything everybody does is influenced by everything everybody else has ever done.
We have the choice to say yes or no, that’s ultimately ours (assuming a sane), but it’s based upon a lifetime of experiences and knowledge. And if it’s not fairly obvious by now…knowledge is the product of facts…and facts are surprisingly subjective.
Even the response to a yes/no, itself, is often heavily tied to a power dynamic between two people. Is it free will if duress is involved?
Even the hobbies that we’ve chosen as individuals to pursue, we got into them, usually, because somebody influential in our lives exposed us to them, on some level. Had that not happened, you’d probably know nothing of those hobbies, and take up something entirely different, from a different influence. Is your passion for that hobby truly your own?
Say you’re a kid and your family moves from SoCal to like Minnesota or some other frozen tundra hellscape. Everybody skates, but you love surfing, and Minnesota isn’t really known for its beaches. So you learn to skate. You never chose to move to Minnesota, you never wanted to skate, but that’s what kids in the area do for fun and the options are fairly limited. Now that kid grows up and becomes a pro hockey player. Was that free will? Even if they end up enjoying it, even if they are good at it, they still kinda stumbled their way into it by circumstances outside of their control.
She kept presenting to the emergency room because she knew she was a danger to herself and others and it was out of her control, the hospitals kept refusing to admit her. She needed intensive inpatient therapy, and it was never given to her.
So square:
With:
And the fact she seemingly told nobody else she felt like she was a danger to others.
Where did she tell anyone about this? Not that the hospital didn’t still have a duty to care for and admit her if she had thoughts of self-harm, but it sure seems like she intentionally lied by omission.
OK That’s absolutely her being responsible, and the healthcare system failing her.
That is something to take into consideration, not the insanity by itself.
A severe manic episode, by definition, is uncontrollable and does not produce rational thoughts.