Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Not Guilty

Published by

Clarissa

on

If Lindsay Clancy isn’t guilty of murdering her children because she is “mentally ill” and on drugs, then Decarlos Brown is not guilty of murdering Iryna Zarutska. Moreover, nobody is guilty of any crime, period. Everybody is on something or can claim to be on something. Everybody has some “mental” trauma or can claim to have it.

We can just go ahead and abolish the entire criminal justice system exactly as liberals want, because everybody’s a victim. Except the actual victims. Those bastards apparently deserved whatever they got.

The very fact that she is not pleading guilty and is trying to wriggle out of responsibility shows that she’s a stone-cold killer.

From what I understand, Clancy is not old. She can still have more kids. What is the justification for not sending her to jail so that she can’t kill any more children?

12 responses to “Not Guilty”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Very similar to the Andrea Yates case some 25 years ago. Yates was initially found guilty, overturned on appeal and found not guilty by reason of insanity on the retrial. In both cases we are dealing with women probably suffering from postpartum depression and loaded with antidepressant medications etc.. I was shocked Yates was initially convicted as her severe mental illness seemed so obvious to me. These are difficult cases, when you get in to the details you find a long history of mental issues and massive over medication. Yates has been in a mental facility for some 20 years now. What would you suggest we do with people like this? Do the doctors or pharma companies bear any responsibility? They shoot mad dogs.

    Walnut

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Clancy, like Decarlos Brown, showed premeditation, planning, and coldness in execution. She schemed to get the husband out of the house. She gave him extra errands to keep him out longer. She tracked his route on a device to ensure that she had time to murder all three children. She methodically strangled each one of the kids, applying the pressure for a total of between 10 and 15 minutes. The expression “mental illness” means nothing if it covers something like this. If you can make a plan that consists of many different steps and carry it out coldly while the children are thrashing, crying, and begging you to stop, “Mommy, Mommy, please don’t,” and you still do it, this is not an illness.

      Please observe that both Clancy and Brown chose much smaller, physically weaker victims. This screams rationality and calculation. Clancy didn’t attack her husband. She didn’t attack the children in front of her husband. She didn’t attack the children in front of any other adult. She planned and waited for the time when she would be alone with the children and have enough time to ensure that they were dead. You need to be very clear-minded to do something like this and do it so successfully. She didn’t get distracted and wander off after killing the first kid. She didn’t get distracted and move on to something else after killing the second. She killed all of them. I think she’s very healthy. I know this is not a death penalty case, but it should be.

      And yes, pharmaceutical companies suck, but ultimately some of us decide to take the garbage they peddle, while others don’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        All valid points.

        Walnut

        Like

        Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    >”What would you suggest we do with people like this?”

    ANSWER: Reopen all the state psychiatric hospitals that were closed in the 1970s and confine criminally dangerous mentally ill people like Yates to them for life. This was routine practice until misguided do-gooders and state budget officials got most of those facilities shuttered.

    Now the only available choices are to send them to prison where they don’t receive proper care, or release them to woefully inadequate outpatient follow-up treatment that doesn’t keep their psychotic personalities safely under control.

    I was a practicing psychiatrist back in the 1970s and remember that debacle very well.

    Dreidel

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. methylethyl Avatar
      methylethyl

      My parents briefly ran a halfway house for the newly deinstitutionalized, back then.

      AFAICT from the way they talk about it, they had exactly one patient in the whole group who was able to transition to civvie life, with a lot of help (and that was because there wasn’t anything wrong with her, but that’s another story). The inmates themselves were not really capable of it, and in the one case who was, there was a lot of resistance from admin about actually helping her make the leap. They did it anyway, but after that it was clear they were in the wrong line of work and wouldn’t last long, so they moved on.

      Like

      Reply
    2. Avatar
      Anonymous

      Of course, I’m sure you’re right. But I can’t help but think back on Willowbrook and the like, which I’m sure you remember. They were horror shows. I grew up next to one in south St. Louis. I had an aunt in there receiving electro shock. Those are ugly memories.

      Walnut

      Like

      Reply
  3. methylethyl Avatar
    methylethyl

    Given that psychosis is a *side effect* of a lot of antidepressants, nobody taking them should be allowed to care for young children alone. She should go to jail AND her prescribing doc should go to jail.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      This woman is in a wheelchair paralyzed from the waist down because she threw herself out of a window in a suicide attempt after killing her children. It seems hard to me that she could’ve formed the criminal intent, mens rea, required in a criminal case. Maybe we can just term these “very late stage abortions” and have done with it.

      Walnut

      Like

      Reply
      1. Physpostdoc Avatar
        Physpostdoc

        “just term these “very late stage abortions” and have done with it.”

        This is the most horrific and casually cruel interpretation of a most horrific crime I have ever read, even if one wants to take a compassionate view of the perpetrator! Decision of a mother to kill an unborn child is difficult enough, though the explicit somatic connection of the mother and foetus that persists up until the moment of birth makes it hard to argue against specific cases where it maybe necessary to save the mother. But to extend such ideas blithely and brazenly to children who have already entered this world will allow all such murderous, child abusing mothers to have a free pass for their ignominious life. The mothers no longer have the same right to life (and death) of the children they have given birth to.

        Like

        Reply
      2. methylethyl Avatar
        methylethyl

        Please say you are joking?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          We have entered a weird dimension. I no longer know what’s supposed to be a parody.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous

            I think the term is reductio ad absurdum. Phillip Dick wrote a short sci fi piece called The Pre-Persons in response to Roe v Wade. A very counter culture position at the time. Many of Dicks works later became hit movies such as Bladerunner, Total Recall, Man in the High Castle and Minority Report. In the Pre-Persons children are considered non-human and may be aborted until they can do basic algebra. Abortion trucks roam the neighborhoods like dog catchers to dispose of unwanted children. It has something to do with taking a point to its logical extreme to demonstrate it’s absurdity.

            Walnut

            Like

            Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts