Does Lindsay Clancy Deserve Sympathy for Her Mental Health and Actions?

Lindsay Clancy is on trial for killing her three children in 2023, an act she has confessed to, though many women have rallied in support of her, prompting media perspectives.

For Context: Clancy's children were ages five, three, and eight months. A GoFundMe fundraiser set up on behalf of Clancy's parents has raised over $1 million.

A Divisive Topic: A report and analysis by Shaila Dewan of The New York Times (Lean Left bias) highlighted how the case is "dividing Americans" and how the saga has "resurrected debates over whether such women" who murder their children "are criminals or victims." Dewan mentioned the "strikingly similar case" of Andrea Yates, who killed her five children in 2001 and was acquitted in a retrial due to insanity after initially being found guilty. She wrote, "Voices across the political spectrum have taken it as a given that mental illness was a driving factor in the Clancy case, and should be weighed by the jury, though some complain Ms. Clancy's supporters have conflated postpartum psychosis, a rare and severe condition, with far more common postpartum disorders like depression and anxiety." Dewan criticized commentary from Megyn Kelly (Right) and The Daily Wire (Right) and said: "What these commentators lack in rationality they make up for in energy and commitment, at a level that suggests they are more about mythic archetypes than criminal statutes."

Complicated Compassion: Victoria Smith, in an opinion for UnHerd (Center), highlighted a case in 2006 in Greece where a man jumped off a fourth-floor balcony with his two children in his arms during an argument with his wife. Greece cleared the man because he was dealing with "an earthquake of insanity," and Smith said, "My current feelings toward Clancy are very different from those I had toward Hogan. Like many feminists at the time, I struggled to sympathize with him." Smith chronicled Clancy's past attempts to seek mental health care without concrete results and called the trial "nominally about the distinction between madness and badness." Sympathizing with Clancy, she wrote, "I myself worry about my own fixation on Clancy's suffering over that of her children. Could it be that we are all reluctant to acknowledge the extremity of female violence because it is so politically inconvenient?" Framing her piece around the female activism for Clancy, Smith concluded, "Clancy's act is not excusable, but that doesn't mean she isn't worthy of our compassion. In the end, however, there are no slogans that can remedy this tragedy, and there is no one else to blame. The mind can do terrible, twisted things out of love as well as hate."

'Disturbing' Activism: Caroline Downey of National Review (Right) highlighted the demonstration in support of Clancy and wrote, "Actually, no, all women don't identify with a woman who allegedly strangled her three little kids to death." Downey said Clancy took "a hefty and extended cocktail" of medicines to treat her postpartum depression and pushed back on claims that the "medical apparatus abandoned" her. She argued if seeking a wide variety of mental and physical healthcare didn't help her and means the system failed her, the "obvious next logical step is institutionalization, which the left would certainly argue violates Clancy's personal autonomy." Downey argued "women are just as capable of maliciousness as men" and concluded, "There is no doubt that postpartum is for many women a mentally debilitating experience… But ultimately it wasn't just a condition or a drug that snuffed out three innocent and precious souls from this world."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.