WATCH: Should Lindsay Clancy be held criminally responsible in the killings of her children?

Should Lindsay Clancy be held criminally liable in the killings of her three children? 

In episode two of The Dialogue, Mark Astor, a criminal defense attorney and behavioral health expert in Florida, and Mark Baker, director of Hope For Life: Biblical Counseling and Equipping in California, debate whether Clancy should face prison time or be committed to a mental institution should she ultimately be found responsible in a court of law. The conversation touches on whether extreme mental illness can excuse a homicide suspect of criminal charges, the jury’s moral obligation, and how this case could set a precedent for future homicide cases. 

The claims discussed are those made in the debate and do not represent the views of The Washington Times.

[HALLOWELL] Welcome to The Dialogue from The Washington Times. In this episode, we cover the case of Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of murdering her three young children. Today’s show tackles definitions of mental illness, the jury’s obligation to the victims, and whether this case sets a precedent for future homicides. 

But the central question remains: Should Lindsay Clancy be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her children? 

Today I’m joined by Mark Baker, author and director of Hope for Life, Biblical Counseling and Equipping, and Mark Astor, a criminal defense attorney and behavioral health lawyer. We start with something that we call The Pitch. Each of you has 30 seconds to tell us where you stand on one central statement: Lindsay Clancy should be held criminally liable for killing her three children.

[BAKER] I do agree. It’s a horrible tragedy all across the board. But nevertheless, we need to acknowledge that people do evil things. And Lindsay is no exception. And, you know, she has demonstrated clarity of thought, planning, organization. Are there extenuating circumstances? There always are. But that doesn’t mean that’s an excuse. 

[HALLOWELL] Mark, let me ask you now. Should Lindsay Clancy be held criminally responsible?

[ASTOR] She should not be held criminally responsible. And there’s two reasons. Number one, we have a documented history that dated back several months when Lindsay Clancy was telling various clinicians that she wasn’t feeling well. She had evidence of some type of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. She was prescribed multiple medications. She claimed that, on the night that she killed the children, she was hearing voices. 

[HALLOWELL] We know where you stand, and we got two different perspectives on this incredibly difficult case. In our focus section, what we do is present three more claims related to the case and you each get a chance to talk, and you are not limited to 30 seconds. You have 5 minutes total. This claim is that severe mental illness should not excuse someone from criminal responsibility for murder. Mark Baker, let’s start with you. Should severe mental illness ever excuse someone from being held responsible for killing another person?

[BAKER] Well, ever is an absolute. And so I would say, are there exceptions? We could argue that maybe in extreme, extreme situations. I don’t think this situation is that. But we want to be careful of, again, making excuses. One of the things, if we’re going to make definitive decisions based on — especially murder, capital punishment, whatever — fully guilty, fully innocent, we need objectivity and we need objective standards.

The term mental illness is very subjective. It shifts. I’ve been studying this, if you will, for over 40 years, and I’ve never really come across the definition of mental illness other than when I had to go searching for it. But we use that term all the time and it’s just like, oh, they have a mental illness. Oh, so therefore they can’t help it. That’s the implication, when that’s not true at all. 

If we dive into it, we see: Okay, where are they specifically responsible? What led to it? What led to this? What choices did they make? Yes, like I said before, there’s always other factors, but that doesn’t excuse people unless there’s some really extreme situation. I’d love to see it and flesh that out. But in general, no.

[ASTOR] I think there are times when severe mental illness can excuse conduct. I mean, you know, under the case law. In Massachusetts, mental disease or defect can deprive a person of substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of conduct and deprive them of the ability to conform their conduct to law. So the issue is not did she suffer from severe mental illness. The issue is, did the Commonwealth overcome their burden? Because the burden lies with the Commonwealth to prove that she was not insane. And once that defense is raised, the burden lies 100% to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her actions, although she could not conform her actions to law.

Now, there was a whole history here of clearly some psychiatric issues dating back from October of 2022 until just shortly before the children were killed. She was complaining to various clinicians that she wasn’t feeling well. Two defense experts said that she did not have the ability to understand right from wrong. Two defense experts said she could not conform her conduct to the requirements of law.

Even, I believe it was her mother-in-law and one other witness, said she wasn’t feeling well; she was potentially suicidal. There was evidence that on the night in question she was hearing voices. I believe it was referred to as command hallucinations. And the evidence suggests, based on the evidence that was presented during the trial and the method in which she allegedly killed these children, that she clearly couldn’t appreciate right from wrong. And the fact that she then went and threw herself out of a second-story window, basically rendering herself as a paraplegic, seems to suggest that she was not able to. And not only do the facts support that, the Commonwealth clearly didn’t present sufficient evidence to overcome their burden. And therefore, her conduct should be excused.

[BAKER] If I could say. You know, again, we’re talking about mental illness. If there’s something that excuses it, that needs to be really clear. And the definition or the bar is very low for mental illness. It’s like, OK, well, if you were depressed on Tuesday, that’s a mental illness, according to this construct and whatever person’s beliefs or standards. So if somebody is kind of down one day or they’re anxious or whatever, then we need to excuse them. 

In fact, that came up with Dylann Roof, who shot 9 Black people in a Black church however many years ago, and it was reviewed by the DOJ attorney to give him clemency. Because why? One of the arguments was, well, he was suffering from anxiety. That’s unfortunate, of course. That is what it is, and a lot of people have that. Therefore, what? Then they can go do whatever and then be excused from it? It’s not as clear-cut. Again, this is a subjective field that’s shifting all the time. And so a person could be guilty one day but not guilty the next day because these are shifting with our society, not objective truth or God’s word.

[ASTOR] There was some argument made by the prosecution that the alleged command hallucinations had never been heard either before or after this, after the killing of the children. The issue is, was she suffering from this mental illness at the time, at the time that she killed the children? Did she hear those voices at the time that she killed the children? And the evidence, I would argue, suggests and indicates that she did, and she was suffering from mental illness at the time. She did hear those voices, and the Commonwealth didn’t overcome their burden to rebut that evidence.

Watch the video for the full conversation.