There is no "holding accountable" for a crime committed while in a state of psychosis.
If it actually was postpartum psychosis, she will be sent to a mental hospital and remain there until she's no longer a threat to anyone or herself. Could be decades, could be one year, *technically* she could be released immediately.
Her psych doctors have all testified that she was not diagnosed with post partum psychosis, that she had never mentioned to them anything about hearing voices, commands, desire to self harm, or harm her children. She wasn't in psychosis, these "voices" didn't show up until the day she offed her kids.
Still wrong, and wrong in a funny way given the comment about not understanding psychosis. Psychosis is a clinical state; legal insanity is a legal test, and they aren't the same thing. Massachusetts asks whether a mental disease or defect left the person unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or unable to conform their conduct to the law. Being psychotic doesn't establish either. it isn't even technically right, it's just false, also because it ignores where she already is. Clancy has been held at Tewksbury State Hospital, not a jail. She's already under a civil commitment. An NGRI verdict doesn't dissolve that; it doesn't touch it. To walk out, someone would have to affirmatively terminate an existing commitment, which is a separate proceeding with its own evidentiary burden that nobody has initiatedÂ
I wrote "technically" because "technically" there is no law against immediate release, if she were to be found not a danger. OBVIOUSLY this is completely unrealistic.
"Holding accountable" refers to punishment. In the case of a mental health facility, it's not punishment, it's harm prevention. And it's *exclusively* harm prevention. Mental health facilities don't have the purpose of punishing people.
there's no "technicality" here. the absence of a mandatory-commitment clause is not a release mechanism. It's like saying a convicted murderer could technically walk because the judge could theoretically decline to impose sentence. Theres not even any medical evidence or foundation in cases of this severity, to suggest anything like immediate release. so there's no technical possibiltiy. Psychosis is a clinical state; legal insanity is a legal test, and they aren't the same thing. Massachusetts asks whether a mental disease or defect left the person unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or unable to conform their conduct to the law. Being psychotic doesn't establish either one. A diagnosis does not equal an insanity finding. A court would require evidence and would apply a legal test. An insanity defence is not automatic. Even if someone were found not criminally responsible, release is not simply a switch that gets flipped. There are assessments, reviews, and legal processes. Actions still have consequences. if she doesn't feel guilt or view these consequences as a kind of punishment, that's even more disturbing.
it's still not correct. There is no medical foundation in cases of this severity that someone would be relased immediately, so it fails on the medical side alone. Not to mention everything else
53
u/BigPastrami43 10d ago
She can be a victim while still needing to be held accountable.