Dear Editor:
Who will speak for the children? One man did, and look where it got him! Obviously, I'm referring to the Lindsay Clancy trial.
It is a matter of cruel irony in my opinion that if one can only grab the DSM-5 and find a mental excuse for any and every thing that used to be called a crime, the perpetrator has the potential to essentially go free, the innocent victims (precious children) be damned! (Isaiah 49:15)
Another cruel irony in this case is that much ado is being made about the fact that the holdout juror had been arrested for domestic abuse allegations. First of all, I am rabidly opposed to domestic abuse, but little if anything (NBC?) is being said about the fact that the man's charges were dismissed. Also, at the time of this writing (September 14), it has not been ascertained whether the juror did not fill out the jury questionnaire correctly or whether the court overlooked his answer to the relevant question concerning prior arrests. Do I think the dismissal should necessarily qualify him for serving? No, but the high-and-mighty jurors attacking the holdout juror are good with the children's murders so long as they can clutch their DSM-5's and feel good about an insanity verdict.
The verdict the majority wanted to see was "not guilty by reason of insanity (lack of criminal responsibility)." This would reportedly carry a mandatory psychiatric institutionalization of UNSPECIFIED LENGTH! What--one hour, one day? Why isn't some kind of minimum confinement requirement attached to this verdict option for jurors?
Lindsay Clancy's history did appear to show that she was earnestly seeking psychological help for her PPD, and it seems pretty clear that she was overly medicated. That should certainly be looked into and dealt with. But here's the catch, to me. The mother of these children was sane enough to premeditatedly get their father away from the home so that she could be free to commit her dastardly deed(s). She even called him at one point to add to his errands, apparently to insure that he was away LONG ENOUGH! Then she proceeded to put the exercise bands around her children's necks one by one and choked the life out of them. As we know, only the baby survived--for a very short period of time.
If Lindsay Clancy can get by with an insanity plea, why can't the DSM-5 accommodate people like Christopher Watts and Scott Peterson? I will never forget seeing the video of Watts and his family riding down the road in their van with little Bella singing, "My daddy is a hero!" He HAD to be insane to do what he did--but CRIMINALLY INSANE AND ACCOUNTABLE--and rightfully so!
https://youtube.com/shorts/bbrjDRDbeCQ?is=-TOvq9xFR3Ir6gC1
I hate to think that it's true, but it certainly seems that women murderers (usually of their children) often get off more lightly just because they're women. Case in point--Casey Anthony. It ought not to be so!
Georgia Wilkinson
