When Does Compassion Become Complicity?

Accountability, Mental Illness, and the Lindsay Clancy Trial. Three children are dead. Their mother was suffering from a devastating psychiatric illness. Both facts can be true at the same time, but only one of them can answer the question of criminal responsibility. That is what makes the Lindsay Clancy case so difficult. I have tried to imagine what it means for a mother's mind to become so severely altered that the unthinkable begins to look reasonable. I have tried to imagine the terror of postpartum psychosis, the hallucinations, the delusions, and the loss of control. I have also tried to imagine being a sibling, relative, or friend of those children and being told that the person responsible should face no criminal punishment simply because she was ill. And I find myself unable to accept complete absolution. I believe Lindsay Clancy should be held criminally accountable and punished. Not because mental illness is irrelevant, and not because a suffering person deserves no compassion, but because understanding a person's mind should never make us forget the innocent lives that mind destroyed. The argument that she "didn't know what she was doing" becomes difficult for me when I look at the evidence presented at trial. On the day of the killings, Clancy searched for her child's medication, searched for takeout, used Apple Maps to calculate the journey, arranged for her husband to leave the house for food and medication, and then remained alone with the children for roughly 45 minutes. Prosecutors argued that this was not random behavior but a series of deliberate actions designed to create an opportunity. And then there is what happened during that window. Her three children were strangled with exercise bands. A prosecution expert testified that carrying out the killings required multiple decisions over roughly 18 to 20 minutes. This was not one instantaneous movement; it involved a sequence of actions, and that matters to me. Psychosis can distort reality, but criminal responsibility cannot be decided simply by asking whether someone had a diagnosis. The harder question is whether that illness destroyed the person's meaningful ability to understand that what they were doing was wrong. Even Massachusetts law recognizes that distinction. Mental illness does not automatically erase criminal responsibility. The question is whether the illness deprived a person of substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the law. This is where I struggle with complete absolution. After the killings, while hospitalized and communicating through writing, one of Clancy's first questions was, "Do I have an attorney?" A psychiatrist who examined her testified that she appeared goal oriented and did not show signs of psychosis during that examination. Does that prove she was sane when she killed her children? No. But does it matter? Absolutely. It is evidence that deserves to be considered alongside everything else, because the question is not whether she was ever mentally ill. The evidence of her mental health struggles is overwhelming. The question is what that illness did to her capacity at the moment she killed her children. I also do not believe that holding her accountable means ignoring postpartum psychosis. In fact, we should be talking about it more. Clancy had sought psychiatric treatment before the killings, and her defense argued that the healthcare system failed to recognize or adequately treat the severity of her condition. That deserves serious examination. If mothers are experiencing terrifying thoughts, severe insomnia, suicidal thinking, or other warning signs, how quickly are we identifying the danger? How much help is actually available before a crisis becomes a catastrophe? But healthcare failure and criminal accountability are not mutually exclusive questions. We can ask whether the system failed Lindsay Clancy and still ask whether Lindsay Clancy failed her children. Those children had no choice. They could not leave the house, they could not understand a mother's illness, they could not ask for help, and they could not defend September. Cora, Dawson, and Callan should not become footnotes in a debate about their mother's suffering. I have compassion for Lindsay Clancy, but I also believe she should be punished. Those statements are not contradictory. Punishment does not mean pretending her illness never existed; it means recognizing that the lives of her children mattered too. Her mental illness can be considered in determining the appropriate legal response without automatically erasing the possibility of criminal responsibility. Because if justice becomes so focused on understanding the person who caused the harm that we forget the people who suffered it, then something has gone terribly wrong. Maybe the hardest form of compassion is admitting that a person can be deeply unwell and still have to answer for what happened. And maybe justice means having enough humanity to ask why she broke without having so much sympathy that we forget who she broke...

Other insights from Keeyra Writes✍🏽

Contributor Points

Points-to-Coupons

Referral Earning