Does her life have value?

There is so much to unpack here and I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s start with the obvious. What do you do with a woman that admits to murdering her own children? Just the very act of saying that in our heads is such an afront to everything we’ve been taught about women and mothers. I think that’s why this has struck such a nerve…….well that and the immediacy and intensity of all of the information we get spoon fed every day.

I’m going to start by admitting which side of the fence I’m on. I know she’s guilty of murdering her children, but I do not believe she had the capacity to stop what she did. She knew she was going to do something horrible, and it sounds like she did everything she could to get help. I do believe she had a psychotic break. I understand she murdered her children, and I also understand that because she did that to the young children that she was gifted with and charged with loving and caring for that it makes it more difficult to accept that it might not have been anything more than a broken person doing a horrible thing. I don’t think she should go free, and to be honest I don’t think she wants to go free. I’m conflicted about what I would do, except…….except that we seem to be forgetting about the rule of law here. I would be ok with whichever way the Jury had decided the case should go, mostly because that is/was their duty, not ours.

I have a couple of thoughts about the trial and the jury process. Reasonable doubt. It’s an important part of the deliberation process for a reason. The jurors had a duty to abide by and uphold the instructions they were given. That part is not a choice. It was claimed the lone juror admitted to having reasonable doubt and still decided to not follow instructions. Was it a moral objection? I understand, but…… Was it wanting to be a voice for the children? Once again, I understand but…… Was it stubbornness and arrogance as has been suggested? Was it looking for a way to get his 15 minutes of fame? If either scenario is so, then shame on you Mr. Juror. In any event, it’s alleged he decided to forego upholding his responsibility, and that is my biggest objection to what happened.

The merits of the case. That’s what should have mattered first and foremost. I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know what is involved in being a judge but, in my opinion the judge should have taken reasonable steps to try and figure out what the holdout was about, and if he believed that the holdout juror was not abiding by the instructions given then in my opinion, he should have been replaced with an alternate.

Now as we weigh all the “He said, She said” being thrown about between the jury pool and the lone juror, allegations of unbecoming behavior, and of a bias towards Lindsey by some jurors for reasons that do not pertain to the facts of this case, I have to say that I see a couple of issues with all of this. Firstly, I see a lot of people acting like the entire fate of civilized man hangs in the balance. I disagree. It’s pretty clear what happened and it’s pretty clear who did it. We can certainly have a discussion about the pros and cons of the American judicial system and this particular case, but I’d pick our system over any of the others. I think it is in the best interests of the welfare of the people to support that system, even when we disagree with it. So, with that in mind, while we are free to disagree with the verdict, we have no choice but to abide by it. Secondly, it also seems that a lot of folks are of the opinion that not guilty by reason of insanity is a step forward for the women’s right movement. I disagree. I think that her insanity, her psychotic break is the root cause of her murdering her children, but I don’t think this is an “All or Nothing” situation. She should not be exonerated and set free, as a martyr for the women’s movement, nor should she be put to death, or placed in a cell with no chance for treatment. I’m guessing some would ask, “Why even bother? She killed them, admittedly, and should spend the rest of her life behind bars or dead.”

Does her life have value? I believe there is a benefit to treating Lindsay Clancy specifically that will benefit other post-partum sufferers in the future. I don’t believe she wanted to kill her children, and I believe she will spend the rest of her life tortured by it. In my personal opinion, she will find a way to end her life as a result of what she’s done. I think it’s ironic that in this age of pills for everything and names for every possible fucking condition, that the mental well-being of people is pretty much being disregarded and over medicated. POST PARTUM ISSUES ARE REAL………….let’s say that again. POST PARTUM ISSUES ARE REAL. We as a society should be fighting for the medical and psychiatric establishment to address the root causes, if possible, as well as ways of identifying the levels of severity and not throwing pills at women and expecting them to power through. Their children are dead as a result of the horrible, horrible failures at ALL levels in this situation. We need to do better. Much better.

Which brings me to my last question and the end of my rant. Why is her ex-husband not being held to some degree of accountability in this? There was only one other person in this situation who had full knowledge of her condition and the circumstances inside their home and who was just as responsible for the children’s safety as she was. His duty first and foremost was the safety of his family, both the children’s and his wife’s.

WHY IS PATRICK CLANCY NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE?