guilty but mentally ill - by Grace Kiconco

Okay so here's the thing about the Lindsay Clancy case that I think people keep dancing around: she did it. Strangled her three kids; Cora, Dawson, and Callan, with exercise bands. Nobody's arguing about that part. What everyone's actually fighting over is whether the person who did it can be blamed for it. And I think a full not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict kind of dodges that question instead of answering it.My take, and I'll just say it upfront: I don't think postpartum psychosis should completely wipe the slate clean. Not because I think she's some evil mastermind, genuinely don't think that, but because "she was psychotic" and "she's not responsible at all" aren't actually the same claim, even though the trial keeps treating them like they are.Here's what gets me. She reportedly tried to kill herself right after. And people bring that up as proof of how sick she was, which, fair, it probably is evidence of that. But flip it around for a second, if some part of her was aware enough to try to end her own life because of what she'd just done, doesn't that mean some part of her knew it was wrong? Like, actually knew, in the moment, not just in hindsight. That's kind of a huge deal for an insanity defense, because the whole legal test is usually "could this person tell right from wrong." If she could tell it was bad enough to not want to live afterward... that's not nothing.So what do I actually think should happen instead of a clean acquittal? A lot of states have this thing called "guilty but mentally ill" and honestly I think that's the move here. There's no middle ground, it's actually more honest than either extreme. Its basically saying yes, this happened, yes, you're the one who did it, AND also yes you were dealing with something that genuinely messed with your brain, so we're not going to treat you exactly like someone who planned this in cold blood. You get treatment. You get a different kind of facility. But you don't get to walk away with the legal equivalent of "this didn't happen."Because here's the part that I feel like nobody says out loud enough , a full innocent verdict isn't just merciful to her, it's also kind of silent about the three kids. Like, what does that verdict say to them? Nothing, because they're not around to hear it. But symbolically? It says the law doesn't need to answer for what happened to them at all. And that feels wrong to me even if I fully believe she was extremely sick.At the same time , and I want to be clear I'm not saying throw the book at her like a normal murder case either, punishment is partly about deterrence, right, the idea that people weigh consequences before doing something. If she was in full blown psychosis, there was no weighing happening. No rational calculation to deter. So treating her exactly like a premeditated killer who planned this out over weeks would also be kind of a lie, just in the opposite direction.Honestly the part of this whole case that I think gets slept on is the healthcare angle. She was reportedly having her psych meds adjusted in the weeks before this happened. That's wild to me. Everyone's laser focused on "was she legally responsible" and almost nobody's asking how did the system let this get to this point. Those are two completely different failures; one's a courtroom question, one's a better postpartum mental health screening question, and I feel like collapsing them into one trial is part of why the jury couldn't even agree.So yeah, severe postpartum psychosis should be a massive mitigating factor. It should change where she serves whatever she serves, how she's treated, whether it's a psychiatric facility instead of general population, whether it's about treatment instead of pure punishment. But I don't think it should mean zero accountability. A verdict that says no responsibility whatsoever is asking a jury to say three kids dying requires literally no formal answer from the person who caused it, and I just don't think any court should be okay saying that, even with compassion as the reason. Three kids don't get a retrial.

Other insights from Grace Kiconco

Contributor Points

Points-to-Coupons

Referral Earning