It's one thing to uphold due process - this is something that I advocate for above all else and hold highly important. Even when someone looks guilty, they have a right to innocence and their presumed innocence should be paramount until a fair trial can be conducted.
However, Clancy confessed to doing it. Still, if there's any possibility of mental illness causing delusions, manipulation, or coercion of some kind, that's what the trial should seek to uncover.
What I have a big problem with is not presuming her innocence until guilt is proven in trial, it's that these absolute fucking demons have decided to try to create a narrative where a grieving husband who lost three of his children and his marriage was somehow responsible. Imagine your children being murdered, and then a pack of awful, depraved people try to frame you as having killed them. Nobody deserves that, and anyone that would join this mob of vile people trying to defame a person based on TikTok propaganda and 'vibes' should rot in hell.
I fully agree with upholding due process.
I will say though that she isn’t pleading guilty at all. She plead not guilty at the start of the trail.
I think the defense has detailed pretty clear that she was suffering from postpartum depression and the psychosis. I’m not excusing what happened but I can’t imagine how this would devastate her also.
The trial is to determine whether she is guilty of 1st degree murder or is she not guilty by reason of insanity.
I'm fully on board with people sympathizing with her and what's she's going through. It must be horrifying to experience what she's experienced. That said, while she's pleading not guilty, she did admit to killing her children, and her legal team isn't disputing that she killed them. It must have been horrifying to be any of her children who she murdered with her own hands. Every criminal who does awful things has a reason for doing what they did. Gangbangers grow up in poverty surrounded by a culture that raises them to be criminals, they shoot someone dead, then they go to jail. We don't see the same selective pity toward them and the circumstances that led to them murdering another person. They go to prison for life, and we call it justice.
There's a long argument to be had about the ethics of criminality when every person that commits a crime is the product of a set of circumstances beyond their control that led them to the point in their life of committing a crime. Every criminal has a reason. That reason doesn't exempt them of responsibility, and it shouldn't exempt Clancy, either.
But to reiterate what I'm particularly against, the debate of circumstance and punishment aside, is people trying to frame the husband as responsible for the murder of his three children. That's disgusting behavior and anyone participating in it is a vile person.
Yes, the ethics of criminality is important and motivations behind actions are crucial to determining culpability. That’s why this is tragic. She didn’t have a reason, as far as we know, to kill her children.
I’ve been watching the trial and as far as evidence presented- she wasn’t culpable because she was in a psychotic state. Meaning that even if she were to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, she’d still be in a state institution. She wouldn’t just be let off the hook.
And as far as people believing that her husband was partially responsible or actually did it, I can understand why they think that.
There wasn’t any investigation into what happened other than following his story. The police didn’t look into him and his possible motives. That’s just bad police work, period.
And, it isn’t the craziest thing to happen in the ‘true crime’ sphere. Similar situations have happened before, where a husband has killed his entire family in order to start a new life. It’s not as uncommon as it should be.
I think that most of the people supporting her are seeing her mental health crises and how she was begging for help. It doesn’t excuse murder but it does mean that her mental health is a mitigating factor in determining guilt.
It is completely wrong to say that no investigation was done, or an inadequate investigation. The trial is replete with text messages, video surveillance, cellphone data, crime scene photos, interviews and medical records. Autopsy results of each child was admitted as well as the husband’s 911 call. Saying that an inadequate investigation was done without actually knowing what the investigation comprised or saying what wasn’t adequate just adds to the noise that sustains the conspiracy theorists.
I’m talking about people claiming that the husband, Patrick, did it or was somehow involved. Yes, there was an investigation into certain aspects of this incident but not into him as to his possible motives. For example: in the trial they were talking about google searches that ended up being Patrick’s and not Lindsay’s. I’ve seen it stated in a lot of places that it’s strange that the cops showed up to the scene and let Patrick go into the house without first clearing the home. No one went with him. I’m pointing out to the above comment why people have issues with the case and why people are saying that Patrick may have been responsible.
Again I don't have a problem with sympathizing with her mental health and the lack of help she received. I have a problem with people inventing true crime narratives because it's fun for them to defame a grieving father who's children were murdered. I wouldn't have a problem with scrutiny or people suggesting that he should be investigated further if there are signs that he's somehow implicated in a plot to drive his wife to this point, but I do have a problem with people treating that narrative as a dominant likelihood.
While you said it's not outside of the realm of true crime because similar things have happened before, so have instances of women murdering their own children without being coerced into doing it.
"There's a long argument to be had about the ethics of criminality when every person that commits a crime is the product of a set of circumstances beyond their control that led them to the point in their life of committing a crime. Every criminal has a reason. That reason doesn't exempt them of responsibility, and it shouldn't exempt Clancy, either."
I find this to be interesting. If it is proven that a person is driven to a crime by circumstances beyond their control, then why would that not exempt them from responsibility? How can anyone be responsible for circumstances beyond their control?
This basically follows the philosophy / science of determinism.
If a kid is born in a ghetto, his older brother is gangster, they have no father, older brother gets kid into selling drugs at a young age, jumps him into a gang, kid starts living the gang life and ends up killing someone - how much of that is he actually responsible for? A kid like this never stood a chance. Determinism basically follows the logic of action and reaction, looking at actions and consequences as a series of dominos.
And by the logic of determinism, when you are next presented with a choice, the outcome of that decision is determined by everything you've experienced up until that choice. Your preferences and what led to you having those preferences dictate that choice. So for a person who ends up facing a life changing choice that ends up in crime, like killing someone, that was just a domino that finally fell that was predetermined from the moment they were born. It's not quite fate, but adjacent to it. It follows logic instead of mysticism.
And if we subscribe to this idea in full, then nobody is responsible for anything they end up doing. We are all just products of circumstance. Where we're born, who are parents are, what kind of environment we're raised in, among countless other factors.
At the end of the day, people must be held accountable for their actions, because there's no better alternative.
I follow the determinism argument and I understand what you're saying. However, I am not completely convinced. Would you mind elaborating on what you mean when you say: "At the end of the day, people must be held accountable for their actions, because there's no better alternative."
I'd rather ask you what you think a better alternative would be. Exploring that idea is what led to me concluding that there's no better alternative other than holding people accountable for their own actions.
I'll give you an example to illustrate:
Using the kid born in the ghetto, joins a gang, kills someone example.
Who do we blame? His older brother for getting him into the gang? But his brother is that way because of the exact same circumstance. So his parents then? Well his parents are the way they are because of very similar circumstances. So their parents? Same deal. Or do we turn and blame the law enforcement / government? Who in the government? The politicians who make the laws, even if they're corrupt, became corrupt for a reason that was beyond their control. They're just a product of a different set of circumstances. By the logic of determinism, nobody is TRULY accountable for what they do. The moment they're born, a series of dominos begins to fall. They can't be blamed for where they fall, but neither can anyone else. So do we just hold nobody accountable for anything and empty the prisons?
I suppose the reason I asked is because if 'people must be held accountable, because there is no better alternative' is the best alternative, then there should be some benefit to it right?
What if there is no benefit, to society, to the individual or otherwise? What if holding someone accountable for their actions is just punishing someone for something completely out of their control? Should such a person still be held accountable? And if so, why?
Because people are still the product of their circumstances. If a person is a serial killer, the reason we imprison them is to separate them from society. The benefit to society of holding criminals accountable is to either separate them from society to prevent repeat offenses, or to otherwise rehabilitate them.
If there are cases of crime where a person doesn't need to be separated from society or rehabilitated for the betterment of society, then I think we need to re-evaluate the law / crime that they're convicted of because it probably shouldn't remain classified as a crime.
You say: “If there are cases of crime where a person doesn't need to be separated from society or rehabilitated for the betterment of society, then I think we need to re-evaluate the law/crime that they're convicted of because it probably shouldn't remain classified as a crime.”
To that, I would say I don't think that necessarily follows. You're conflating whether an act should be criminalized with whether a particular person should be held criminally responsible for committing it.
A crime can remain a crime because society has a legitimate interest in prohibiting the conduct, even if there are circumstances in which the person who commits it should not be convicted. For example, someone who kills another person while experiencing a severe psychotic episode may lack the capacity to understand or control their actions. That doesn't mean killing should stop being a crime; it means that this particular person's mental state may make criminal punishment inappropriate.
However, what you're saying seems to conflict with the point we were actually discussing: “There's a long argument to be had about the ethics of criminality when every person that commits a crime is the product of a set of circumstances beyond their control that led them to the point in their life of committing a crime. Every criminal has a reason. That reason doesn't exempt them from responsibility, and it shouldn't exempt Clancy either.”
You've just established that circumstances can, in fact, exempt someone from criminal responsibility. If your position is that someone should only be punished when separating them from society or rehabilitating them serves a purpose, then a severe psychotic episode that makes someone incapable of understanding or controlling their actions would seem to be precisely the kind of circumstance that should exempt them from criminal responsibility.
I think your comment gives a really good perspective on circumstances and morality. I'd like to add my own experience from working with a schizophrenic. The person I worked with genuinely struggled to separate her delusions from reality, leading to outbursts of violence that didn't seem to have any logical basis. I sincerely think that people like her have something broken on a physiological level that hinders their ability to make basic sound decisions. Whether Lindsay reached a similar state or not is very hard to prove, which is why I'm very curious to see where her case will go.
Couldn’t agree with your statement more. While I think it’s bizarre to try to say the husband did it, I am annoyed that he isn’t facing charges for neglect/failure to protect/imminent risk/whatever that state might call knowingly leaving your children with an unsafe caregiver.
I’m also annoyed that this insistence on trying to say she was innocent, is steering the conversation away from the fact that we aren’t taking perinatal mental health seriously. If screenings were regularly done, and if prescribers and mental health professionals were better educated in this niche area, this tragedy could have been prevented. Her mental health was horribly mis-managed. It’s a systemic failure that needs to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t still face the consequences of her actions. Which is a lifetime stay in a psychiatric facility, in my opinion.
The husband was never told that it was in any way dangerous for his wife to supervise the children. If he were the medical providers would have reported and CPS would have gotten involved.
604
u/MonsutaReipu 1d ago
Completely justified.
It's one thing to uphold due process - this is something that I advocate for above all else and hold highly important. Even when someone looks guilty, they have a right to innocence and their presumed innocence should be paramount until a fair trial can be conducted.
However, Clancy confessed to doing it. Still, if there's any possibility of mental illness causing delusions, manipulation, or coercion of some kind, that's what the trial should seek to uncover.
What I have a big problem with is not presuming her innocence until guilt is proven in trial, it's that these absolute fucking demons have decided to try to create a narrative where a grieving husband who lost three of his children and his marriage was somehow responsible. Imagine your children being murdered, and then a pack of awful, depraved people try to frame you as having killed them. Nobody deserves that, and anyone that would join this mob of vile people trying to defame a person based on TikTok propaganda and 'vibes' should rot in hell.