The jury is entering their deliberations in the case of Lindsay Clancy, one of the most prominent and gruesome murder trials in recent history that had been the subject of public attention and debate.
The question before the jury is not whether Clancy killed her three children. The defense has admitted that she did. The question is whether she is criminally responsible for her acts.
She isn’t saying it was self-defense, she isn’t saying it was an accident. Her defense is claiming that she is not criminally responsible because she allegedly suffered a psychotic episode in the midst of post-partum depression.
So, according to the defense, society should excuse her heinous and evil acts—strangling her own children, one by one, over the course of 18 minutes with exercise bands—because she just couldn’t stop herself.
That itself is insane and no moral or upright society should excuse it.
We usually discuss jury nullification only in the context of acquittal: the law technically permits conviction, but the jury refuses because justice demands otherwise.
But if jury nullification is grounded in the principle that justice is higher than the mechanical application of legal rules, why should that principle operate in only one direction?
Lindsay Clancy killed her three children. Cora, Dawson, and Callan are dead because of her deliberate physical acts. Even if the law recognizes an affirmative defense based on postpartum psychosis, justice should not require a jury to declare her “not guilty” and thereby deny the most basic moral truth of what occurred.
Mental illness may explain her actions. It may profoundly mitigate punishment. It may determine where and how she should be confined and treated. But it should not erase the act, extinguish agency altogether, or transform the intentional killing of three children into legal innocence.
Legally, jury nullification is treated as an asymmetrical power: jurors may acquit despite the law, but they may not convict without proof satisfying the law. But morally, that exposes the inconsistency. If conscience may override law to prevent an unjust conviction, why may conscience not also reject a legal defense that would produce an unjust acquittal?
The answer should not be to authorize lawless convictions. It should be to reform a legal framework that forces jurors to choose between acknowledging severe mental illness and acknowledging guilt.
Justice requires both truths: Lindsay Clancy was mentally ill, and Lindsay Clancy killed her three children. Whatever mitigation her condition warrants, the verdict should still say guilty.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
