A mother in Duxbury, Massachusetts, was recently charged with murdering her three young children. Lindsay Clancy, 33, was in her home on a winter evening when she strangled her three children with exercise bands. In court, she pleaded not guilty with her defense team citing postpartum psychosis as a justification. In similar cases, many parents who have committed filicide have entered similar pleas- most commonly, “not guilty by reason of insanity”.
Her husband, Patrick Clancy, had been at the pharmacy. When he returned, he found his wife in a bloody puddle on the floor and the bodies of the couple’s three children. Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer argues that because she suffered from depression, she cannot be held accountable for her actions. Clancy currently resides at Tewksbury Medical Center, where she is being mentally evaluated.
Insanity is a commonly debated topic in the media. Is insanity a real thing? How do we define insanity? Should we consider science or just legal terminology? Does all severe mental illness count as insanity?
All of these questions come to mind when reading about the Clancy case. Was Clancy aware that she was killing her children? Or was her mental illness so debilitating that it prevented her from stopping herself?
First, let’s start with the legalities behind insanity. As defined by Cornell University, insanity in court is when “the defendant admits the action but asserts a lack of culpability based on mental illness”.
The plea “not guilty by reason of insanity” has become controversial in recent years, following cases such as Lindsay Clancy’s.
When interviewed, Philadelphia attorney Iddo Harel said, “I believe insanity should be a partial defense. A convicted person does not go to a conventional jail, but should be involuntarily committed….”.
What Harel means by a “partial defense” is that the defendant can still be convicted of a crime, and not entirely acquitted of charges based on their plea of insanity- whether they have been proven insane or not. A partial defense is common in court- with mental illness often being used as a justification for portions of a crime. However, the defendant still remains partially liable.
Both law and psychology need to be consulted when debating the topic of mental illness in the courtroom. Clearly, some people are actually insane, while others use their conditions as a shield from criminal penalties- seeking their plea to be an affirmative defense against their actions.
When interviewed, Pentucket psychology teacher Ruth Beaton was intrigued. “I wish the subject were so black and white,” she said.
Beaton believes that human emotion has more to do with the insanity plea than we think. “We want to hold people accountable for their actions, but we can’t always.” Prosecution in court often want someone to blame when a heinous crime (e.g. rape, murder, arson, etc.) is committed. This can sway opinions when a plea of insanity is entered- maybe someone truly is insane, but we often don’t want to believe it.
When consulted on the matter, local psychologist Lawrence Larsen said that it is “damn near impossible” to prove if someone is truly insane. Larsen then said that insanity needs a new definition- as terms such as “partially aware” or “unaware” are not entirely specific.
Larsen cited a case from his younger days as a psychiatrist, saying some people truly are insane. When consulting at psychiatric facilities, Larsen got a taste of what criminal insanity really is.
“I once had a patient tell me he got messages through his teeth..and other times he’d tell me ‘it’s sitting on your shoulder.’ When I asked what he was talking about, he said, “the monkey. It’s sitting on your shoulder.’”
Larsen also helped to found the Massachusetts Coalition of Mental Health- but regrets that the organization’s mission was never fully recognized. “We just didn’t have enough people to work in the hospitals we wanted to build.” Larsen says that his organization helped to raise awareness for mental health but failed to create facilities for mental health that were sustainable.
So the question remains- should criminals be allowed to plead insane in court? The general consensus among professionals is yes. Some people who commit heinous crimes are unaware of their actions and must be removed from society. Regardless, the US needs to work more on addressing mental health issues and preventing severe mental issues from manifesting in negative ways- before it’s too late.
Caileigh MacKay • Nov 6, 2023 at 3:53 pm
This is an amazing article. I can see how much effort was put into writing this and it is really impressive. I’ve even seen some professional articles with less effort than this. I also think that it is a very important topic to speak about because it’s so controversial. It would be unjust to convict someone who is completely unaware of their actions, but it has also become something of a blanket for anyone with mental illness to use as a scapegoat. I think that it is a very hard topic, but I also agree that it should remain a viable plea, as there are in fact people who genuinely have no clue what they are doing, and that they need help for the safety of themselves and others. Again, an absolutely incredible article.
Emily Jones • Nov 1, 2023 at 10:24 am
Emily, this article is so well done and you put so much effort into your research, writing, and interviews. It’s not often that student writers go so in-depth into their topic, and you covered this subject so respectfully and succinctly. You branched out and interviewed people who are related to your topic and it definitely enhanced your article. I commend you for your effort and great writing!