Whatever the verdict, Lindsay Clancy is extremely unlikely to be getting out quickly
The jury is deliberating in the Clancy trial.
I am fairly certain she won’t be “getting off,” whatever the verdict. If she is found to have had diminished capacity due to psychosis, her stay in a mental hospital will be very long, IMHO. She brutally murdered her three young children. That is the reality, and they’re not just letting her out in a month. My guess is that she would be staying for many many years and perhaps even for life.
For example, Andrea Yates – who killed her 5 children in Texas in 2001, twenty-five years ago – and was found found guilty but ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity (see this for the twistings and turnings of her legal situation), is still institutionalized in a mental hospital. Massachusetts is different than Texas of course, but here’s how it works in Massachusetts:
Massachusetts law says the court can order her hospitalized for up to 40 days for “observation and examination,” and prosecutors or hospital officials can then petition for involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility.
If a judge determines Clancy is mentally ill and releasing her “would create a likelihood of serious harm,” she could be committed to a facility, the law states. The initial commitment is generally valid for six months and can be renewed in one-year periods.
“She’ll never be released unless there’s a finding by a judge that she doesn’t represent a danger to herself or others,” Rossman said.
She might never get out. Also, she’s probably still a suicide risk, although as a paraplegic she might have trouble accomplishing it.
If I had to guess, I’d predict the jury will be hung. But that’s 100% a guess.
Instructions to the jury covered first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, and not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. For this last one the judge explained what is probably going to happen, which I quote in case it’s of interest:
Key point seems to be “still mentally ill and dangerous”. So, deemed mentally ill but no longer dangerous, the court will order her discharged–“will” being the judges’s word, not mine. It appears that this decision will not be based on what she already did, but what she is likely to do in the future at the time her commitment is reviewed.
Niketas:
Precedent tells us she’s unlikely to get out for a long long time. She didn’t seem dangerous right until she killed her kids, but that proves she was dangerous and future dangerousness is assumed till proven otherwise. Plus, she is a danger to herself in terms of suicide.
I agree on the hung jury part because of the strong feelings on both sides. But I think it quite likely she won’t be confined for more than a couple of years if she is found not guilty. If you buy the argument that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis exacerbated by the effects of her medications, then it seems quite possible that once her medications are adjusted under supervision, she could appear to be no longer dangerous.
This is why I don’t like the Massachusetts insanity defense. Once she is found not guilty, the decision to release her is based on her mental health and the enormity of her crime is no longer relevant. For such a heinous crime, there should be a lengthy sentence regardless of her mental state.
Strikes me that suicide is the correct option for her. A very sad tale.
@Gregory Harper:Once she is found not guilty, the decision to release her is based on her mental health and the enormity of her crime is no longer relevant. For such a heinous crime, there should be a lengthy sentence regardless of her mental state.
When you think about it we expect “criminal justice” to do multiple things, which aren’t always compatible:
a) Protect the public from a known danger
b) Deter others from doing the same
c) Deliver a punishment that the offender deserves, but not more than that
and a few others that I haven’t thought of or don’t know how to express well, like “paying for the crime” which means very different things to very different people.
And anything inflicted on a convicted criminal may fall short on any one of these even if it does well on others.
Bridgewater State?
An uncle went there for a couple of semesters.
AppleBetty:
It won’t be Bridgewater. That is a men-only facility.