The Female Insanity Defense

MAMA ^ | 08/28/2026 | Jack Ludkey

[Az Joe]

Talking to women in pink at the Lindsay Clancy trial

There is no real dispute over whether Lindsay strangled her three children to death with exercise bands. This trial surrounds Lindsay’s mental state, specifically whether she was experiencing psychosis during the hour her husband went to pick up takeout. The killings are so insane it seems obvious only an insane person could do it, but by that circular logic, every serial killer (of which most are men) would be set free. This is the core of the female insanity defense: the more monstrous a woman’s crime, the less responsibility she bears for it.

---

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clancy; females; insanity; liberaltruth

[T.B. Yoits]

[T.B. Yoits]

"Lindsay Clancy was just mentally ill."

~"And Jeffrey Dahmer was just hungry."

[T.B. Yoits]

[T.B. Yoits]

[T.B. Yoits]

[T.B. Yoits]

[blackdog]

AWFL deplorables.

[marron]

Whatever. She can’t be allowed to walk free endangering other people.

This isn’t a game. Normal people have the right to live in safety. If someone commits a heinous crime, they have to be held where they can’t harm anyone else. That’s why we have prisons.

[Beowulf9]

GOOD ONE! 😆

[aquila48]

Good find. As close to an identical situation as it gets.

[Candor7]

Every woman is insane , usually once a month on the lower side of menpause.Thats because they can create life.

But in this case,its a fine line.

There are many indications she was not that crazy.

[dfwgator]

“You can’t punish me for being sick!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eclyJUvXLGs

[FLT-bird]

2 things - both of them bad for women.

1) So your argument is that women are prone - due to their hormones - to being completely nuts and therefore they cannot be held accountable??? If this is so, how can women be entrusted with anything? (didn't think this one through did you?)

2) So people can commit the most heinous violent crimes because they're nuts and therefore we must treat them with compassion and not punish them harshly? OK. What will you say the next time some violent man murders his wife or girlfriend because she made him angry? He had a rush of hormones because he was mad. That made him nuts. Therefore he can't be held accountable.....right? Don't try to tell me the woman gets a free pass but the man does not simply by virtue of their sex. That's not equality. Your central demand all along has been equality. So you OK with letting women beaters and other violent scumbag men off the hook when they commit horrible crimes against women or even kids? (didn't think this one through did you?)

I'm sorry, in the latter case I forgot to add if you don't have a pair of balls, you don't get to have an opinion about it. You're good with this kind of crude sex based argument I see so you therefore must be good with it when its deployed against you.

[Round Earther]

There are men who have used a diminished capacity defense and have walked or convicted of lesser charges.

[ClearCase_guy]

A+

[PGalt]

Thanks. Pre-meditated insanity.

[John Milner]

Ask them if they’d be alright if their mother strangled them tonight because she was upset with them and their attitude towards the killing of 3 innocent offspring.

Obviously it’s not a big deal to kill your offspring when upset - at any age, not just in the womb - these days.

[House Atreides]

I watched live-streaming of much of this trial. There is much misunderstanding of the case and the trial. Based upon what was presented at the trial the eleven jurors who had reasonable doubt that the state had proven its case were correct. They FOLLOWED MASSACHUSETTS’ LAW.

The mother clearly had killed her children. But Massachusetts law says that when a defendant claims “mental incapacity” (I forget the term Massachusetts uses for their insanity defense) the STATE HAS THE BURDEN to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have such a “mental incapacity”. That contrasts sharply with other states’ laws that place the burden on the defense. In this case there was plenty of reasonable doubt that the state net its burden beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don’t blame these eleven jurors for following the law strictly. The fact that they followed the law as instructed doesn’t mean that they weren’t horrified by these. MURDERS. IMHO it’s a faulty law that places the burden on the state and not on the defense where (again, IMHO) it belongs.

The trial made it very clear that there were failures in the Massachusetts mental health establishment. Again, IMHO.

[CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC]

Very good comments at the end of the article. Here's one:

"Since the beginning of recorded history, every culture has recognized women as agents of chaos. It's only the liberal democracies that have allowed that chaos to influence policy, and every time it's resulted an a giant goat-rodeo. Witness female cops, who put themselves and everybody around them in danger. Look at "The Squad" in Congress. Or female CEOs that have driven major companies into the dirt - Bud Light, Cracker Barrel, et al. Probably the worst was Carly Fiorina - a jumped-up secretary who nearly destroyed the American icon, Hewlett-Packard. If you want logic and justice to prevail, get the women off the Clancy jury. I'll guarantee you that's where the deadlock lies."

That's so true. I witnessed the Fiorina debacle firsthand. I was caught in her first and most massive layoff. She was totally incompetent. Slept her way to the top at Lucent by latching onto a VP much older than her, who paved her way to a VP position there too.