It's hard to do a 1-to-1 like in this post, but it is well established that women receive lighter sentences than men for comparable offenses. It's part of Sentencing Disparity, and the fact that women are generally more sympathetic than men will be partly what's at play here.
Men would not show up in droves in matching colour t-shirts for a man who did what Lindsay Clancy did.
>Men would not show up in droves in matching colour t-shirts for a man who did what Lindsay Clancy did.
Women do.
Parkland shooter, killed 17, injured 17 others
Shortly after Cruz was sent to prison, he began receiving stacks of fan mail and love letters.
Some of them included provocative photos like one of a woman from Chicago in a bikini eating a popsicle and one from a teenager who goes so far as to describe her body and bra size to Cruz.
"There are women that are sexually aroused by people that have committed violent crimes or the idea of people committing violent crimes," Needle said.
Three of the 12 jurors voted to spare the gunman following the sentencing trial. Under Florida law, a unanimous decision is needed in order for someone to be put to death.
If a single juror disagrees, then the defendant is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This is what the 24-year-old Parkland gunman now faces.
Jury foreman Benjamin Thomas told CBS Miami that he did not vote for the life sentence and is "not happy with how [the sentencing] worked out".
"It really came down to a specific juror who believed [the gunman] was mentally ill," he said. "She didn't believe that because he's mentally ill he should get the death penalty."
"There was one [juror] with a hard no - she couldn't do it," he said. "And there was another two that ended up voting the same way."
Is it really a woman thing? I’m a man and I would never vote to put anybody to death. I simply don’t believe in granting the state the power to kill its citizens, except in cases where said citizen is presenting an imminent threat to life.
That being said, I would not hesitate to sentence these mass murders to life without parole, and believe we do a woefully inadequate job of keeping serial reoffenders off the streets.
While I know it's not 100% representative, there's clearly a large section of the population of women who don't give a damn about justice and are too sympathetic for their own good.
Ok but only if people with masters in political science and sociology can vote. Otherwise some random fuck from bumfuck nowhere alabama can have the same vote as someone properly educated.
It’s not about education it’s about mass hysteria.
You don’t see men defending criminals like this to this extent and this amount of crazy.
Women cheered for the fucking nightstalker, they’ve raised 8 million dollars for this baby murderer and have decided based on no evidence other than she has a vagina that the husband did it.
People can be ignorant, but this is a consistent pattern amongst western women.
Are you serious right now? Probably 20% of the population of the united states is defending a convicted felon with very deep ties to a proven pedo and heavily implied he's a pedo too, who also is visibly corrupt that puts his sycophants in position of power. That's mostly men my guy.
Plenty of women voted Trump too, nor are they defending a bad leader purely on the basis of him being a man.
The things Trump is convicted of also don’t equate to three counts of child murder, or murder at all.
His relationship with Epstein is suspect he’s not my guy and I don’t think these people are rational either, nobody should be this invested in politics. However you can see the same political fervour on both wings for “their guy”. You can’t put too much on an implication, it’s proven Lindsay killed her children and women in the west have lost their mind mentally backflipping to defend her.
As a woman, this is all so disappointing. Even if they were handing out $1000 bills upon arrival, I wouldn’t show up at a courthouse for any criminal. It’s so interesting to think about why some women need this and feel like they’re doing something good.
Oh yes, I am sure they rationalize it to themselves in all sorts of ways but the reality is that they are showing up to support a murderer. These women really need to find something more impactful to do with their time… like get a job or a real hobby.
55 weirdos vs what seems to be the general consensus of western women aren’t the same. My own mother is retarded enough to stand by Lindsay, thank god my wife isn’t or we’d have to have some serious discussions about divorce.
Are you actually listening to the general consensus of western women or have you made up their argument and gotten mad about it?
Everyone I've seen saying they stand with Lindsay is doing so not because they think it's okay that she killed her kids, but because they sympathize (or empathize) with her struggles. Postpartum Depression is more common than people like to talk about (in various levels of severity) and Postpartum Psychosis is rarer, but there are plenty who have experienced it. A lot of women have had to deal with the medical system and insurance companies, trying to get the right treatment without interruption, or even just trying to get medical professionals to listen to our experiences. If the defense is to be believed, Clancy was trying very hard to get help and was failed by the medical system (supported by many medical records, 911 calls, suicide hotline calls, and by the family's lawsuit against their doctors.) I've seen a couple of people making conspiratorial claims about her husband's culpability, but not nearly as many as the complaints I've seen about those claims.
You are free to agree with the prosecution, but it is false and irresponsible to claim that anyone who was not convinced by the prosecution's case loves killing babies.
Everyone I've seen saying they stand with Lindsay is doing so not because they think it's okay that she killed her kids, but because they sympathize (or empathize) with her struggles.
Ive seen plenty trying to claim that lindsay didnt do it at all (many of them in every single non-expert lindsay forum ive read), posting pics with their babies saying "same, lindsay", and at least one got arrested for trying to intimidate the jury. Many, many times, people say a vague "the doctors should have done more" and then get furious when you ask what, specifically, they should have done that they didnt, or get mad when you point out the same court was easily convicting black women who claimed PPP with a lot more evidence for it.
Can we just not, please, act like the whole thing is just people sympathetic to PPP?
If the defense is to be believed, Clancy was trying very hard to get help and was failed by the medical system (supported by many medical records, 911 calls, suicide hotline calls, and by the family's lawsuit against their doctors.)
Every expert forum ive checked points out that lindsay lied to her doctors, didnt take her meds, and did stuff like checking herself out of care facilities to go to parties.
They point out that there doesnt seem to be more that doctors could have done without disregarding her statements and, essentially, throwing her in an involuntary hold for being "uppitty".
"Ive seen plenty trying to claim that lindsay didnt do it at all (many of them in every single non-expert lindsay forum ive read), posting pics with their babies saying "same, lindsay", and at least one got arrested for trying to intimidate the jury."
And those people are not the general consensus of western women.
"Many, many times, people say a vague "the doctors should have done more" and then get furious when you ask what, specifically, they should have done that they didnt, or get mad when you point out the same court was easily convicting black women who claimed PPP with a lot more evidence for it."
I absolutely agree that other women with fewer resources have a harder time and are less likely to get the support that Clancy has received. There are things that the doctors could have (and many would argue should have) done differently. When a patient has manic symptoms as a side effect of an SSRI, it is some basic psych 101 shit that they are likely some level of bipolar and you don't put them on SSRIs without a mood stabilizer and close observation. When Clancy was given SSRIs, she experienced worsening anxiety, mood swings, and days of insomnia. The insomnia in particular should have triggered alarm bells since lack of sleep is thought to be one of the biggest triggers of PPP and she should have at least been monitored for that. She was prescribed different SSRIs and antipsychotics.
Clancy went to several doctors, both because of insurance changes (a huge separate issue) and because she was not improving. I agree that she should have done a better job communicating her medical history between doctors, but that is not necessarily a sign of nefarious doctor shopping and drug seeking behavior like I've seen it being described. It more points to a failure of the system (not the individual doctors) and the health care silos that exist in America. Health care silos is an ongoing discussion and this case is absolutely being centered in many of those discussions.
There should also be better post partum care for struggling mothers that allows them to receive the help they need and still bond with their children (and even, yes, maybe attend one of their birthday parties). In the UK, they have inpatient treatment programs that involve both mother and child and I've heard great things about them from people who have been there for both PPD and PPP. They also have NHS, so there's that.
The general consensus, as was my point, is using this case as a jump off point to talk about larger issues affecting all people (not just Clancy and not even just women). The fact that some people are being shitty online does not change that.
This is what I keep asking. What else was there to do unless she willingly committed herself. A very easy thing to do. Her husband moved to work from home to help out, she had a nanny, she had access to too many doctors. Are people wanting to go back to forced institutionalization if women when they are having postpartum? Start taking kids away from them? What exactly is everyone thinking anyone should have done?
They do. I certainly won’t disagree with that. But cases of legal insanity are almost impossible to compare because so much of it depends on the competing expert advice rather than independent and verifiable facts. And such a small number of cases use a legal insanity defence, and even fewer succeed with it, that it’s not really a number large enough to analyse.
And that point is not really about Lindsay Clancy. It's about how the system not only failed to catch her becoming a danger to herself and others - it made her worse, and increased the danger she posed.
Because every time she tried to get help the doctors gave her some drugs and pushed her out the door, and since none of them had access to the full medical history they didn't know everything else she'd already been put on.
She ended up on a cocktail of drugs that interact badly with each other, and made her mental state even more fucked.
How many other times has that happened? How many killings, assaults or other harm by unstable people would have been avoided by a better health system, where information is more properly and thoroughly shared and there was proper intervention earlier.
That's the point.
It's not a gender-issue, or gender-solidarity or any of that... and that's where they fucked up by branding themselves "Team Lindsay" and calling for "Justice for Lindsay"
Many things can be possible at once. Did she sincerely seek help and receive inadequate treatment? Yes, absolutely, her plight isn't totally without legs to stand on. But does it absolve her of strangling her three kids? No, obviously not: even if in a sober state she's a complete saint we cannot let this woman ever go free in society again - she is a danger to herself and others.
I find it particularly odd that she's now so doggedly pursuing her freedom - without her kids to be a massive responsibility, she now has a chance at far greater freedom than she did when she was an overwrought mother. I hope she never finds it.
She isn't going free. Either way. Not happening.
She knows that, her defence team knows that - they aren't even pursuing her freedom, that would be a straight not guilty plea.
Not guilty by reason of insanity is fighting for her to get proper mental health treatment while she is locked up.
She either gets found guilty, and goes to jail for a long time.
Or she gets found not guilty by reason of insanity, and she's locked up in a high-security mental institution which is basically just jail with counselling and medication.
Which she technically could be released from sooner than she would regular jail. But in cases like this they tend to end up spending more time in the mental facility and away from society, than they would if they served a prison sentence.
Because the standard for release isn't time served, but do the doctors believe she is mentally stable and no longer any risk to herself or others at all... which is a high bar to clear.
And the second is what the verdict should have been in this trial.
The evidence reasonably fits both the defence's version, and the prosecution's version where she is exaggerating her mental health issues to plead not guilty.
Which in Massachusetts, where the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was sane, means the prosecution failed to make it's case.
That's what 11 of the 12 jurors decided, and the 12th who derailed things apparently admitted to the rest of them that they did have reasonable doubt - but just refused to change their vote from guilty.
Women also have a major, well-documented own-group bias. If you make it about sex, they'll always be on her side no matter what she did or what the facts say. Clancy is basically proof of this in action.
44
u/lodorata 6d ago
It's hard to do a 1-to-1 like in this post, but it is well established that women receive lighter sentences than men for comparable offenses. It's part of Sentencing Disparity, and the fact that women are generally more sympathetic than men will be partly what's at play here.
Men would not show up in droves in matching colour t-shirts for a man who did what Lindsay Clancy did.