MENTAL HEALTH, JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY - by Temitayo Victoria Likinyo

The Lindsay Clancy case is one of those cases that may be difficult to process, not because the facts are not clear, but because the law itself is being tested. Let us looks at the caseOn January 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children Cora, Dawson, and eight month old Callan at the family's home in United States. After that, she attempted to take her own life but survived with serious injuries. Lindsay later said she heard an auditory hallucination commanding her to commit the acts and she could not resist.Lindsay did not deny what happened at trial, though the real argument was about her state of mind during the act.Her defense argued that she had been suffering from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder and therefore lacked criminal responsibility. Much of the trial focused on her mental health in the months before the deaths occured, where she had sought treatment from multiple healthcare providers for symptoms including insomnia, intrusive thoughts, and suicidal ideation. But the prosecutors alleged that Lindsay was mentally aware at the time of the killing, they pointed that she had sent her husband out on an errand on the same day, which shows evidence of planning.They emphasized that she only reported hearing the commanding voice on the day of the killings, and that none of her doctors had recorded any signs of psychosis in her before that day.After weeks of trial and deliberation, there was still no precise outcome from the case, as the case is still in court for further deliberation. Now what does the law says?In criminal law, it is not enough to prove that a person committed an act, there must also be a guilty mind.In this case, the action is clear but the real question is whether Lindsay Clancy had the guilty mind at the time of the action.Under Nigerian law, the principle of murder is shown in Section 316 of the Criminal Code.There, murder is defined and situations where intention to kill or cause serious harm are listed. But, in this case, the issue is not just whether the act done fits into those situations, but whether the required intention was truly present. If the accused was suffering from a severe mental condition like postpartum psychosis, it becomes difficult to say that the intention described under Section 316 existed in the normal sense.This is recognized by the law that not every person who commits an act is fully responsible. Section 28 of the Criminal Code provides for the defence of insanity. It states that a person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, they were suffering from a mental condition that made them incapable of understanding what they were doing or of knowing that it was wrong.The law does not just punish actions, it also looks at the mind behind the action. But the law is also meant to protect society and give justice to victims. So when the harm is as serious as taking lives, the question becomes, can the law completely remove criminal responsibility because of mental illness?To understand this properly, we have to look at the condition being discussed. Postpartum depression and psychosis Postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis are often mentioned together, but they are not the same. Postpartum depression is more common and involves deep sadness, anxiety and emotional stress after childbirth. A person going through it is usually still aware of reality, even though they are struggling.Postpartum psychosis, however, is rare and more severe. It can involve hallucinations, loss of touch with reality, false belief and distorted thinking. In such state, a person may not fully understand their actions or may feel controlled by something outside themselves. This is why it is taken very seriously in both medicine and law.The real problem is that awareness of these conditions is still very low. Many women struggle in silence, and sometimes help comes too late.Now, bringing it back to the case, if Lindsay Clancy was truly in a psychotic state, then punishing her in the usual way may not achieve justice, because the law normally requires a “guilty mind.” But if we remove responsibility completely, it can feel like the law is ignoring the lives of the children that were lost.The difficulty is that mental illness is not as easy to prove as a physical act. The court has to rely on medical records, expert opinions, behaviour before the incident and the overall circumstances.In this case, there was evidence that Lindsay had been seeking treatment for mental health issues, but there was also argument about whether those issues had reached the level of psychosis. This is what makes the case complex. So where is the balance?In my view, I believe mental illness should not completely remove criminal responsibility, but it should change the kind of accountability we give.The law should not treat such a case the same way it treats an ordinary crime, because the state of the mind is different. At the same time, the law should not ignore the seriousness of the harm that was done.Legal accountability should still remain, It should include strict medical supervision, proper treatment and a system that ensures both safety and care of the society while recognising that the offender may not have been fully in control.Because in cases like this, justice is not just about punishment.It is more about understanding what happened, protecting society, and also recognizing that sometimes, the person who caused harm was already unwell long before the law got involved.

Other insights from Temitayo Victoria Likinyo

Contributor Points

Points-to-Coupons

Referral Earning