On January 24th, 2023, Lindsay Clancy, a nurse from Massachusetts, strangled her three young children before attempting suicide by cutting her neck and wrists and leaping out of the second story of their home, resulting in paralysis from the waist down.
According to her defense, Clancy was suffering from a severe mental illness known as postpartum psychosis, along with a history of insomnia and suicidal ideations. The prosecution has sought to undermine the insanity defense and argue that the murders were premeditated. The jury was presented with closing arguments on Thursday and will decide whether to hold her criminally accountable or commit her to a mental institution.
Whatever the verdict, the trial has prompted a public debate about the mental health struggles of mothers. Hundreds of women have shown up outside of the courthouse in support of Clancy and many more have expressed empathy online. Others have criticized the outpouring of support as the perverse defense of a child murderer.
Judging by the conversations being had on talk shows and in certain parts of the internet, our society is finding it difficult to avoid turning everything into a culture war. With the absence of nuance that is characteristic of culture war issues, critics claim that irrespective of Clancy’s mental health, she murdered her children and deserves to go to prison or worse.
Some have gone as far as claiming that the support that Clancy is garnering is a sign of social decay. During a Fox News segment about the trial, a guest opined that, “One thing has become abundantly clear. We have devalued children’s lives in some very devastating ways, largely thanks to abortion culture in our society.”
The important question at hand in this trial has to do with just how much Clancy’s mind was compromised. If she was compromised enough, this was a tragic event for everyone involved and Clancy’s blameworthiness is limited. If she retained enough of her senses, Clancy deserves to go to prison.
Some may believe that even if we were to grant that Clancy was experiencing severe psychological problems, her actions were horrifying enough that she should go to prison. Some have wondered how it’s even possible to defend such a person. For those who believe this, there appears to be a misunderstanding about how blameworthiness is supposed to work, which has derailed this debate.
Blame and moral responsibility depend on a person’s ability to control their actions, an understanding of right and wrong, and intact decision-making faculties. If an individual more or less meets these conditions, it seems that we’re justified in blaming them for their actions and holding them accountable. One does not have to empathize with Clancy to understand that without these psychological components, blameworthiness cannot be attributed.
A toddler couldn’t be morally blameworthy if they were to harm someone. If someone were to be coerced into a crime by a clear threat to their life, we would find it hard to blame them as well.
Scientists understand the structures of the brain responsible for aggressive behavior and could theoretically overstimulate these regions, producing an uncontrollable rage. If a person subjected to such stimulation later harmed someone, it would be unreasonable to hold them accountable.
What all of these cases have in common is precisely that they either can’t tell right from wrong or have been forced into doing harm by things outside of their control. Our justice system rightly takes these circumstances into consideration by allowing coercion as a mitigating factor, having juvenile courts that are less punitive, and in the case of mental illness, allowing insanity pleas.
Severe mental illness like schizophrenia and psychosis can indeed remove the components needed for deserving blame and punishment. Certain disorders can cause individuals to lose touch with reality and lose all control of their faculties. In such cases, if they were to harm someone, although the harm could be quite tragic, in holding them accountable we would be punishing someone who could not be expected to control their behaviors.
According to the clinical description of postpartum psychosis, the disorder can distort a patient’s sense of reality and cause extreme confusion, delusions, paranoia, and hallucinations. Claiming, as some have done, that mental disorders do not influence someone’s blameworthiness, ignores the basic reality of how blame acquires its justification.
It’s far too common in our public debates for sides to take superficial and absolutist positions such as “How can you defend a murderer?” One can find Clancy’s actions abhorrent while understanding that there are circumstances that can influence a person’s blameworthiness.
As awful as Clancy’s actions were, we thankfully have a justice system that understands this very obvious fact and the jury is tasked with determining whether Clancy was sufficiently in control of her faculties.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group