In an askance manner, more like side eye, I’ve been looking at this Lindsay Clancy case, but even the little things I have seen have been enraging.
This woman strangled her children, ages 5, 3 and 8 months — a heinous enough crime — and has admitted her acts. That in and of itself should be enough for many folks to grab ropes and pitchforks. However, her defense of this act is one that highlights the decline of societal norms — She claims she should not be held criminally liable because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder.
What’s even more astonishing is the number of people who are rallying to her support, and that includes members of the jury that has heard her case. The jury cannot seem to come to a consensus on whether she is guilty of murder.
Her supporters feel that Clancy is the victim in this affair because she didn’t have enough support from “the system.” It’s as if the circumstances surrounding this crime matter more than the fact that the three children are dead.
Having grown up in a law enforcement family, and having covered numerous cases involving murder, I have always thought that the equation was simple: laws against murder were passed, murder was committed, and if the evidence shows suspect killed victim — beyond a shadow of a doubt — then a guilty verdict was delivered.
(Except in this particular case. Only one of the 12 jurors called for a direct guilty verdict; the remaining 11 felt Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity.)
In short, facts are facts. In this case, there is her admission, and all the other evidence that points to her being the perpetrator. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, guilty is as guilty does. The rest of that is just noise.
That’s not to say that Clancy did not suffer, but that suffering doesn’t negate the deaths of those three babies. She may very well have had those issues (I’m not a psychiatrist, so I can’t say), but if that was the case, shouldn’t that have been taken into account BEFORE having another child? Does the fact that it wasn’t mean that it absolves her from manually strangling her children?
(To grasp the horror of that, read the transcript of the 911 call made by the father of the children when he found them.)
While I ponder these things, it does occur to me that I really shouldn’t make any judgments because I’m not in her shoes. That’s a fair point, but I’m trying to look at this in a matter-of-fact manner. As I mentioned previously, a criminal trial is essentially a finding of facts. If the facts point to someone having committed a crime, then that person should be found guilty.
Taking things like mental states, organic brain dysfunction, too many Twinkies, diminished capacity, intoxication or duress — all of which can be valid causes to certain actions — cannot and should not be used to excuse a crime. They can be, however, used by the courts in determining consequences.
Clancy by her own admission is guilty of murder. The factors that led to that crime cannot change that. However, in the aftermath, those factors should be used to determine the best sentencing. Clamoring for her to receive leniency cannot be allowed to negate the fact that Clancy is responsible.
Yes, get her the help she needs. But never forget those children. They needed help, too.
Tony Farkas is editor of the San Jacinto News-Times and the Trinity County News-Standard. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
