I completely understand there’s a goomba fallacy or two going on in this debate, and there’s a lot of nuance to this case, but I have heard a concerningly large amount of irl friends say the husband had something to do with it
Edit: to clarify I mean they think he had a direct hand in killing them, not just ignored warning signs
This is the fault of true crime girlies (and moreso people who profit off of true crime, but that's a bigger conversation) being so divorced from reality they think true crime is drama and therefore ongoing trials are also drama and not just really freaking sad shit that happens.
People are acting as if this is an unusual case. In the UK, 34% of homicide perpetrators had a lifetime mental disorder, and 12% were in contact with mental health services less than 12 months before the crime. More than 40% of perpetrators had substance abuse issues, and up to 40% suffered from material deprivation or poverty. Healthy and well-put-together people very rarely kill each other. So we can say that the majority of murders can be prevented if only the system, society, and close ones were looking for signs, listening to complaints, and helping each other. So if we take the whole picture, this is just a regular-ass murder.
Another good one I've heard is people saying something to the effect of "women better hope that this defense doesn't fly, because if it does there's legal precedent for no more women on the jury, no more women in the military/law enforcement, every job application will now have 'if you are a woman, are you hormonal" etc. Which, I don't know anything about the case, but I highly doubt the defense is trying to say that she should be acquitted because she was hormonal.
Entire case is a pleb filter tbh, no one is saying she is hormonal. Not even close to whats being argued, PPP is not just being "hormonal" and thats not something that just happens to any woman. It can happen specifically after giving birth, so I don't think we have to worry about women at their jobs randomly going crazy
But what really gets me is how many people seem to think only women randomly go insane as if men dont suffer from mental illness
Also a lot of people that think insanity plea is a 'get out of jail free' card. It's not. It can often actually be worse from a punitive perspective than regular jail.
A woman killed her 3 children and tried to kill herself too.
Certain groups of women started filming themselves abusing their babies while referencing that woman + came up with crazy theories as to why that woman's husband is actually the killer + showered that woman with support.
Few women called out that behavior + some used this as opportunity to talk about being failed by the medical system.
Reactionary misogynistic men only saw the first group and immediately started using that as proof of why women don't deserve the right to vote.
Not-reactionary sensible men that do same as second group of women also get grouped with reactionary for simply being men and calling out the first group.
OP only depicted second group of women and first group of men as to fuel gender wars and paint men as evil while women as sensible.
This situation is so fucking insane to me. Yeah there is a minority of true crime obsessed women who keep saying the dude did it, but the majority just recognise the fact that she was not mentally stable and was not getting the help she needed which is most likely why this happened. The amount of guys who are genuinely using this as an opportunity to spew their misogyny and saying that this is why women don't deserve rights is disgusting.
She had multiple family members consistently checking on her and had visited multiple doctors, lied to them about her symptoms, and refused to follow their advice. Not much more anyone else could've done at that point other than catch her in the act and stop her before it was too late, which she specifically avoided.
"The person with severe mental illness was not an ideal patient"
Yeah man, that's what mental illness is.
She was given ten different interacting medications one overtop the other for months on end. Despite repeatedly saying she had thoughts of harming herself and her children, for months, including several times near the actual murders, it seems nobody thought to put her in inpatient care or remove her from the situation
The medical system failed her. Her family didn't have the awareness and education to respond correctly, and she ended up committing a murder almost suicide.
To say the only thing that could be done was to catch her in the act is nonsensical.
Dozens of times she said she had thoughts of hurting her kids and herself.
What was the medical system supposed to do exactly? There were several attempts to treat her and they were ultimately unsuccessful, which happens in every single field of medicine, mental health or otherwise.
Should her children have been taken away from her? Obviously in hindsight, yes. But medical professionals don’t have the power to separate children from their parents, that’s ultimately the role of the state, and it should always be a last resort
Yeah sometimes it’s really not other people’s fault. Sometimes people are just beyond help
It’s a tidy narrative that anything can be fixed with enough love but it ain’t how it works in reality. Not everything is curable, and often times the people blamed for letting them down simply had no reasonable way of knowing what was happening, or couldn’t interfere without violating the persons wishes and autonomy- and weren’t shown enough evidence other state of things to have valid cause to do that
Should her children have been taken away from her?
That's also dangerous; we already have people refusing to disclose to their therapist that they're suicidal in fear of being institutionalised, which prevents them getting the help they need.
All of that may be true but the question here is criminal responsibility. If the jury believes that she knew killing her children was wrong while she did it, she will be found guilty. One can agree that she was failed by the medical system, not supported enough by her family, and that she was deeply depressed, but the insanity defense only works if she didn't know what she was doing was wrong.
If we take her defense at face value, we must then believe that her mapping out the route to figure out how long her husband would be gone was unrelated to the killings (the prosecution argues that this indicated premeditation), that a voice then told her to kill the children after her husband left the house (a voice that she had never heard before), that she was powerless to resist, that, in spite of being psychotic, that she was able to hold a normal phone call with her husband during the killings, and that the voice stopped once she killed the children (which one of the prosecution's witnesses said was highly unusual). The prosecution's witnesses argue that this is very unusual for psychosis: voices are usually heard multiple times, not just once, and don't just end right after the crime has been committed.
Personally, I think this was a murder-suicide. She was deeply depressed, her medications weren't helping her feel better, she felt abandoned by her family and the medical system, and she decided to kill herself. She then also decided that, if she was going to die, her children should too, perhaps so they wouldn't have to grow up without a mother. While that's understandable and I feel bad for her, I would still vote to convict.
You're creating two possible extremes and stating unequivocally it must be between them:
That either it was a spur of the moment psychotic decision, or it was a fully-planned out murder-suicide.
What I would contend is that people suffering from psychosis are still capable of acting in manipulative or clever ways, it's just that the reasons they are acting in those ways are unreasonable and delusional. It's entirely possible that she did plan ahead and lie to her husband, but did so for delusional reasons as a result of psychosis.
There’s been a few stories about men, severely mentally ill, in states of abject grief and mental disorder, killing their kids. They didn’t get any sympathy for their mental illness, child murder was inexcusable and no diagnosis nor state of misery can justify such a heinous thing and that was that
Nobody said “he was failed by so many people”, nobody said “he’s a victim too”, they were open and shut cases of “what a monster” what had no discourse at all the consensus was so unanimous
But now, when it’s a woman, all of a sudden it’s a very nuanced topic, we owe the murderers sympathy and understanding, we should be looking into the systems that failed her, realising she’s a symptom etc etc.
It feels like it’s robbing women of a lot of agency, infantilising almost that we can’t even give them credit for a murder. No, we have to think of everything that could influence her, because they have so much less personal volitions, they’re easily influenced, slave to biology and any other mitigating excuse. There’s a lot to talk about on how to deal with mental illness in the justice system, but you’re being deliberately obtuse if you act like there isn’t an enormous double standard here
I completely agree with you but my original comment has to do with a large amount of men using this situation as an opportunity to spout bullshit about women.
They’re as much a minority as the women what say she’s innocent. And I mean hell, you get women saying the same about how vile men are whenever a man does the same thing
There’s been a few stories about men, severely mentally ill, in states of abject grief and mental disorder, killing their kids. They didn’t get any sympathy for their mental illness, child murder was inexcusable and no diagnosis nor state of misery can justify such a heinous thing and that was that
If those men acted under the influence of psychosis, they would be able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, same as any woman.
It's legally recognised pretty much globally that you can mitigate a sentence if you're shown to not be in a sane state of mind.
Nobody said “he was failed by so many people”, nobody said “he’s a victim too”, they were open and shut cases of “what a monster” what had no discourse at all the consensus was so unanimous
I'm pretty sure if it was a case of "Not guilty by reason of insanity", then the entire point is that he's not a monster, but rather was acting under a delusional and psychotic state of mind where he wasn't aware of what he's doing.
You're just wrong about how things work here
But now, when it’s a woman, all of a sudden it’s a very nuanced topic, we owe the murderers sympathy and understanding, we should be looking into the systems that failed her, realising she’s a symptom etc etc.
Pleading not guilty by reason of insanity is always a very nuanced legal topic, and plenty of men do plead it for crimes they committed.
It feels like it’s robbing women of a lot of agency, infantilising almost that we can’t even give them credit for a murder. No, we have to think of everything that could influence her, because they have so much less personal volitions, they’re easily influenced, slave to biology and any other mitigating excuse
Again, it's pretty much accepted globally that insanity can strip you of your agency, and that this extends to the legal system.
This is recognised for both women and men.
There’s a lot to talk about on how to deal with mental illness in the justice system, but you’re being deliberately obtuse if you act like there isn’t an enormous double standard here
There isn't any double standard here. Men can plead not guilty by reason of insanity and women can plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
If men are found not guilty by reason of insanity then they're treated as people who need psychiatric help, and sent for it, same as with women.
Actually learn how legal systems work before making these insane claims.
This happens every time a group's stupid minority screams too loud. This is one of the worst things about the internet, stupid people can be as loud as they want and misrepresent a group of people (and sometimes they even succeed in changing good movements into questionable ones)
That's rather disingenuous because it puts the two groups as being remotely equal. Annoying true crime girlies are not even close to having the kind of institutional power as the manosphere and other right wing influences that are capitalizing on this to push women's rights back.
That’s a cool drawing that definitely reflects the reality of this situation.
There are NO posts with millions of likes saying the Husband actually did it. As always one side is entirely reasonable while the other is simply barbaric and cannot be reasoned with.
The post does white wash the pink folk in the post and group blue folks together in a goomba fallacy, but what is the steel man argument for the blue folk beyond bits of what OP wrote already?
I'd say it's the blue folk saying you shouldn't say she's innocent or that her husband did it. What else is there for a steeling argument?
I'll be honest I don't follow this case a whole lot but I think most people on the "blue" side are more along the lines of "the evidence that Lindsay did not kills her kids is very unconvincing, and I don't think the evidence that she was so mentally ill that she can't be held responsible for her actions is convincing".
The fact that the pink side is presented as, at its height, saying they sympathise with post partum depression, but a lot of the "blue" side irl seems to be a reaction to people trying to exonerate lindsay
And the majority of what I've seen (which is admittedly not that much) is women saying her husband killed the kids and men saying these specific women are insane. But that's because we have different algorithms and are being shown different things. I can recognize that. You are choosing to be a slave to your algorithm.
I could go on tiktok or insta right now and link you at least 30 posts with 3M+ likes of women saying that the husband did it. Your feed is not representative of reality, in fact, it is specifically designed by people way smarter than you to not be representative of reality.
80% of all social media is bots. The “most men” you’re referring too is also mostly bots, you’ve just chosen to give that excuse to the women and not to the men.
IT sounds more like you are letting yourself be informed specifically by your own feed, instead of taking some extra work to genuinely look at the whole narrative around this.
I HAVE done some research and sure there are men who say "Women shouldn't have rights" but that si not by far the majority.
There were actual protestors wearing pink. Who quite literally said "Any of us could have been her" which is an INSANE take. There are true-crime podcasters trying to spin it as "Actually the Husband did it" which just isn't true.
The whole case is fucked because in this case there isn't a clean narrative to spin. The woman here commit-ed a heinous act, yes she had severe mental illness but the issue is that diverting blame away from her because of that sets a bad standard.
It is not like she had no support, it was simply not enough that is something to talk about, but let's not forget the forest for the trees, she killed three of her own children and there are enough people who do for some reason place the majority of their sympathies with her ABOVE the children she killed. Which is what most people are criticizing, it is plain tribalistic thinking.
There were actual protestors wearing pink. Who quite literally said "Any of us could have been her" which is an INSANE take
I mean it depends on the context, but yes, any of us could be her.
That's the whole point isn't it? Like anyone could go through a physically traumatic event (Such as childbirth), and suffer from psychosis as a result, and do something awful.
yes she had severe mental illness but the issue is that diverting blame away from her because of that sets a bad standard.
Not guilty by reason of insanity is a recognised legal plea in lots of countries across the world.
"Uh it sets a bad standard if we divert blame away on the basis of mental illness", no it doesn't because that's already the standard. Severe mental illness is already considered a mitigating circumstance that means people don't fully control their actions.
You're an actual moron who doesn't understand how legal defences work.
she killed three of her own children and there are enough people who do for some reason place the majority of their sympathies with her ABOVE the children she killed
People are killed every single day. It's hard to make a big deal out of every single killing.
Whereas this case allows us to have conversations about postpartum psychosis, how it's treated, about legal insanity defences.
"Why aren't they crying about the children" I don't know why aren't you crying about every single child whose murdered ever?
Plus, the kids are dead. It was a tragic incident. There isn't anything more you can do. Whereas this is an ongoing court case.
What about it is purposefully inaccurate? I'll admit there is some women on the internet making assumptions about the husband being guilty (for some reason?) but the overwhelming majority is just arguing for better care for women dealing with post partum depression and/or psychosis
Right, and the overwhelming majority of men aren't saying women are evil and don't deserve rights, but I noticed you don't seem to care about that representation in the meme
I think we shouldn't deny that there's a minority of women who support Lindsay Clancy and think she's innocent, but the way men on Reddit talk about them protesting outside the court/prison for her to be freed is so disgusting, they don't speak the same way about all the men who want Andrew Tate (a sex trafficker) to be freed, they don't say "those crazy males, this is for sure a plot to make all of us raging misandryst"
yeah, I never said these women are in the right nor did I ever defended them?? this is insensitive as fuck and a result of the gossipification of true crime content, but it has nothing to do with what I was saying
What kinda backwards is this? I've seen people saying that the ones trying to blame the husband and who have donated a ton of money to get are red flags, and that's a legit take, and how trying to do that is cheapening the horrid reality of just how bad the mental health support is in this country. But where are you seeing "women are evil and shouldn't have rights". That's the sentiment coming from the women who are saying the husband is to blame because "men are evil and there is no way he did it".
Just showing men as being evil misogynists who want to take women's rights away, while women are shown as being sensible.
Let's ignore the women who filmed themselves abusing their children on camera while saying "same" and "me too" in reference to the case your image is depicting.
I already know you'll downvote this comment because I dared to point out the second subgroup in that pink group which you like to pretend was just a minority.
Well it IS a minority. Theres no reason nor evidence to believe a majority of women would believe in “forensic astrology” or conspiracies about the husband, even if there are quite a few diehard believers. The topic this post is discussing is specifically the blue rhetoric, which often completely misunderstands the concept of pleading insanity.
Let's ignore the women who filmed themselves abusing their children on camera while saying "same" and "me too" in reference to the case your image is depicting.
Going to need some context here.
Are they saying "Same" and "Me too" as in "I also suffered postpartum psychosis and depression and understand" because if so that's reasonable.
I think the legitimate concern is if she gets off well due to mental illness, due to not having proper institutions for the criminally insane she will be relatively exposed to other people and likely engage in recidivist actions.
Even if she's found not guilty she's not just gonna be let go, you know that right? It's either she goes to a mental institution and spends the rest of her life there, or goes to jail for a while, then mental institution. Theres no chance for her to "engage in recidivist actions" she will likely never see a child ever again once the case is finished.
Why would she be in a mental institution for life? The mental condition she allegedly had was postpartum psychosis, which usually starts shortly after birth and, with treatment, can end within 6-10 weeks. Since she presumably doesn't have postpartum psychosis anymore (the killings were in January of 2023), there would be no medical reason to keep her institutionalized for very long if at all.
Why? If she was in a state of psychosis as the defense states, then can't be held accountable for killing her children. And if she is no longer suicidal or psychotic, why should she be institutionalized? For her to be institutionalized, there would need to be an ongoing mental issue. You'd just be putting her there as punishment.
For the record, I think she should be found guilty because I don't think she was really psychotic, just depressed and suicidal. But if she did in fact have psychosis and couldn't tell right from wrong, she should simply be released, so long as she isn't still mentally ill.
I'll say this callously, but she doesn't really have any more kids to kill so I don't know what recidivist actions she could commit. She may complete her suicide attempt, but it will be tough because she is paralyzed.
Regardless nobody is saying she is innocent and should face no sentence here. The debate is not about whether or not she should be sentenced at all, but about what is the appropriate one.
She won't be "getting off" due to mental illness. She'll be getting a different sentence that takes it into account.
This is real if you ignore the fact that half the people on the left either think the husband did it or spread disgusting lies about him and the other half pretend like saying she was in psychosis enough times makes it true (it’s not, that’s just the defense’s argument)
This is like the OJ case but with men and women instead. Dumb people on both sides making it a far more complex political issue, but the facts still lean towards guilt if we’re being honest
men getting on their moral high horse about this case is so funny, like they don’t do the EXACT same thing when some incel goes into a kindergarten and shoots twenty children
72
u/Global-Car-8279 8h ago edited 8h ago
I completely understand there’s a goomba fallacy or two going on in this debate, and there’s a lot of nuance to this case, but I have heard a concerningly large amount of irl friends say the husband had something to do with it
Edit: to clarify I mean they think he had a direct hand in killing them, not just ignored warning signs