The right wing media campaign that this was somehow about her doing life or going free is maddening. “not guilty by reason of insanity” is not an acquittal, she will spend the rest of her life in a state institution the question is just prison or mental institution. Nobody ever said “murdering your kids shouldn’t ruin your life” and pretending like they did is part of a fascist campaign to cast women as unworthy of political rights
Absolutely factual. Massachusetts law says the initial commitment is valid for six months, and after that she can only be recommitted in additional one-year periods. Every single year they would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she's still mentally ill and that releasing her would cause serious harm.
Even the initial six months isn't guaranteed since the facility can attempt to discharge her before then, but the DA gets the opportunity to petition for continued commitment.
The defense's argument is that the murders were caused by a postpartum psychotic episode. If that episode has resolved, what exactly would justify long-term commitment beyond the initial six months?
Literally a case in the 50's where something like this happened. Woman killed her kids, went to the psych ward, out in 3 years. After some time she has more kids and kills them too.
You're trying to make a point somehow? This is terrifying. If you murder someone because of your insanity, you should be locked up for life. Fact! Mental illness is handled so badly so good luck with the insanity not surfacing up again later. I get it you want your hero free to roam the streets but get a better argument.
Exactly, you can hack a sleeping man’s head off with a machete on a greyhound bus before eating the corpse in front of the other passengers and you can get out in under 5 years. With a name change as a bonus so long as you pinky promise the review board (who are incentivized to prove their system works to rehabilitate) that you’ll take your pills every day.
You're right, it's not guaranteed, as the case above (and all of the cases where men have killed children and were able to argue insanity successfully) makes clear. Why is it we just have a problem with that fact now that a woman is using the same defense men have used for years?
Men shouldn’t be “getting away” with this defense either. If this was a classic male family annihilation we should be singing the same tune. This isn’t singling her out by gender
Ummm. I'm a lefty and believe she would be out relatively quickly based on the fact that the mental illness she was suffering from is temporary. Not sure how that's a right wing thing. In MA they would have to continually prove she is a danger to keep her.
And to be clear, I think she should be out if her mental health allows it.
Show me an example of when redditors specifically have more information on a topic than almost anybody else in the world and 11/12 of them agree. And if you could, are you saying you wouldn't agree with the 11/12? They'd probably be right...
Right. This feels very MAGA level “cOmMoN sEnSe” and now we’re just throwing expertise out the window because it’s information that’s hard to wrestle with.
Cool, well, we're talking about a hypothetical future where she's successfully treated and deemed by medical professionals to no longer be a threat to others. You're saying that she should remain locked up after that point, which seems kinda pointless.
Because that’s highly unlikely to happen. There are strict, exhaustive psychiatric evaluations she will have to go through to determine her mental state - and it’s intense. To think she’ll be out in a year takes the stance she wasn’t in psychosis in the first place.
It's a right wing thing because that's highly unlikely to happen? I don't follow.
Also, certainly disagree that it takes the stance that she wasn't in psychosis. It was nearly 3 years ago, for a condition that doesn't usually last more than a few months.
She would get reviewed every year, and if she could prove that she 1) is no longer suffering from psychosis, and 2) is no longer suicidal, she'd be a free woman
If Lindsay Clancy were found not guilty by reason of insanity, she would NOT face a guaranteed life sentence in a mental institution, but she could remain confined indefinitely if she is still considered mentally ill and dangerous.
How Commitment Works in Massachusetts
Initial Confinement: An acquittal by reason of lack of criminal responsibility leads to an immediate civil commitment order to a secure psychiatric facility (likely back to Tewksbury, where she’s been.)
The court reviews the commitment status annually.
Potential for Release: If doctors and the court determine that the mental disease or defect has resolved and she is no longer a danger to herself or others, the judge can order her discharge after a formal hearing.
If I were on that jury, there’d be two votes to convict.
When someone is found not criminally responsible for reasons of insanity, they are sent to a mental institution yes, but then they are fairly quickly assessed.
If they are found not to be a danger to the public or themselves, they are released.
Rightly or wrongly, those are the two choices society gives us at this time.
There is no "nice jail but for people who are mentally unwell" option.
There is only jail, which is punishment, or a mental hospital, whose only concern is whether today and into the future they are a danger to themselves or society.
If they are found to be neither or those things, they are released.
371
u/johnnylovelace 19h ago
The right wing media campaign that this was somehow about her doing life or going free is maddening. “not guilty by reason of insanity” is not an acquittal, she will spend the rest of her life in a state institution the question is just prison or mental institution. Nobody ever said “murdering your kids shouldn’t ruin your life” and pretending like they did is part of a fascist campaign to cast women as unworthy of political rights