The nuances behind punishment

On January 24, 2023, a horrible thing occurred. The lives of three children, Dawson, Callan and Cora, were taken. But that is not what made this thing so horrible. The horiible part was not only the manner in which they died, or their ages, or even the fact that they died in their own home. No. The most horrible thing about these children's deaths was the killer, Lindsay Clancy, their mother.The defense claims that at the time of the murders, Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis. Lindsay had heard a voice, a voice that convinced her to take the lives of her innocent children. The horrible thing had been done, and she was put into cuffs, but the question remained: what next? What should this individual, who had done such a horrifying and unnatural thing, be subjected to? She should be punished for this, shouldn't she?That seems like the obvious answer. Three children are dead, their mother killed them, and there should be a consequence for that. But if the basis of this question is that Lindsay was mentally unwell, then what exactly is her punishment for, and what purpose does it have? Are we imposing punishment because Lindsay was a sick woman who had a mental break, or are we imposing punishment because this horrible thing happened and, somehow, it has to have a justifiable end?And perhaps that is where the conundrum lies. We know what happened. We know that three children died and that their mother was responsible for their deaths. What we do not seem to know, or at least what we have not properly considered, is what we want to achieve by punishing her. Punishment is not supposed to exist simply because something terrible has happened. It is supposed to serve a purpose. We punish people to deter them from committing crimes, to protect society, to rehabilitate them, or because we believe that they deserve to suffer a consequence for what they have done. But where does Lindsay's case fit into any of these purposes if she was, at the time of the killings, experiencing a psychotic disorder that had fundamentally altered her perception of reality?If she genuinely believed the voice she heard, if she genuinely believed what her illness was telling her and was no longer capable of understanding nor controlling her actions in the way a mentally healthy person would, then who exactly are we punishing? Are we punishing a woman who made a conscious decision to kill her children, or are we punishing a woman for what happened while she was severely mentally ill? And if it is the latter, what exactly are we hoping that punishment will accomplish?This is not an attempt to suggest that the deaths of Dawson, Callan and Cora should be overlooked because their mother was mentally ill. Their deaths remain the centre of the tragedy, and the fact that they were innocent children makes what happened especially difficult to comprehend. However, the horror of an outcome cannot, by itself, answer the question of criminal responsibility. Something can be devastating and still require us to ask whether the person responsible has the mental capacity to be punished for it.This is where the idea of punishment becomes particularly difficult. If we say that Lindsay should be imprisoned to deter other people from committing similar crimes, who exactly are we trying to deter? Are we trying to deter other women from developing postpartum psychosis? Are we suggesting that the threat of prison can stop a person who is experiencing hallucinations and delusions from acting on them? If a person is genuinely detached from reality, the threat of a punishment that exists in reality may not mean much to them in that moment.If we say that she should be imprisoned to protect society, then that is a different question, because a person experiencing severe psychosis can be placed in a secure psychiatric facility, where she can be prevented from harming herself or anyone else while receiving treatment. If rehabilitation is the purpose, then psychiatric treatment may also address the actual problem more directly than imprisonment would. This leaves us with retribution, the idea that Lindsay should suffer because three children suffered. And while that may explain why many people instinctively want punishment, it does not necessarily explain why punishment is the most appropriate form of justice.Asking the question, “What should happen to Lindsay Clancy because she killed her children?” eliminates the nuances in this case. The better, more difficult question is, “What should happen to Lindsay Clancy if she killed her children while she was so severely mentally ill that she was no longer capable of the kind of reasoning we normally require before calling someone criminally responsible?”The answer shouldn't be a cell and a sentence. She should receive the medical assistance, psychiatric treatment and help that she obviously needs, while still being kept in a place that protects her, and the general public.

Other insights from Caramel

Contributor Points

Points-to-Coupons

Referral Earning