Dr. Malone weighed in on Massachusetts law. It’s crazy. He wrote the following on X.
Massachusetts has written into law something that most people probably STILL do not understand: a person can kill someone, successfully claim insanity, and never serve a prison sentence for the killing. Ever.
That is not a minor technicality in Massachusetts law.
If the jury has reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was criminally responsible due to insanity, the verdict is not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. The defendant can then be sent to a psychiatric hospital for an initial 40-day period of observation.
After that, the state can seek to keep the person committed, initially for six months and then in renewable one-year periods. SO LINDSAY CLANCY COULD BE RELEASED AFTER 40 DAYS AFTER SENTENCING. This is psychiatric confinement, not a prison sentence. Once the person no longer meets the requirements for being involuntarily committed, they can be released.
There is no murder sentence sitting there waiting to begin. There is no requirement that they spend 20 years, 30 years, or life behind bars because they took another person’s life.
Think about what Massachusetts has created. Someone can commit a horrific murder, avoid a guilty verdict because there was reasonable doubt about their sanity at the time of the crime, spend some period of time in a psychiatric hospital, and walk out the door in 40 days if they are later judged well enough to be released. The victims remain dead. The killer can go home and murder again. That is not a minor technicality in Massachusetts law.
Emphasis mine.
Original Story, September 5
Erick Erickson, a Republican radio host, weighed in on the Clancy case, dismissing online comments. He noted that there is one significant point people are missing.
He did bring up a very important point. Massachusetts law is very different from that of almost every other state.
“In Massachusetts, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane. In almost every other state, it’s a preponderance of the evidence by the defense that she was mentally unstable at the time of the murders. But in Massachusetts, she’s presumed to be insane, and the prosecution must prove she was sane, and a lot of people have missed that nuance in Massachusetts law,” Erickson said on his show.
“It’s why it’s very hard to prosecute Lindsey Clancy. She murdered her three children, slit her own throat, and threw herself out of a second-story window, and she’s permanently paralyzed.
“Good luck convincing the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane, while you’ve overcharged her with murder one, murder two, and manslaughter, among other things; the prosecution here mishandled the case.”
I don’t know if the prosecution mishandled the case, but the nuances in Massachusetts law are critical and explain why 11 jurors wanted to find her not guilty.
I didn’t follow the case, but it does explain why the defense attorney said the juror didn’t follow the law. The law leaves a massive loophole. However, the prosecution might have proven she was sane for the lone dissenting juror. Lindsay Clancy planned it and spoke with her husband during the execution of the crime. There are other factors that, if correct, did prove she was sane enough. You can’t let someone who planned as much as she did claim an 18-minute psychosis she never had before or since, and then get away with the brutal murder of her three small children.
It’s reasonable doubt, not no doubt.
The law is lenient toward potentially mentally ill people. You can read the section on “criminal responsibility” here. This is one point that makes it very difficult to find her guilty. That is in addition to the fact that she tried to kill herself and is now paralyzed. The law says, “There is no burden on the defendant to prove that they lacked criminal responsibility.”
“The Commonwealth may meet its burden of proving a defendant was criminally responsible for their conduct in either of two ways.
“The first way is for the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”
It goes on to say that it doesn’t have to fit into a formal medical diagnosis. However, it must include an abnormality that manifests only as repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial behavior.
The defense attorney continually said she was always wonderful. She was a wonderful person, wife, and mother, he said repeatedly.
“The second way for the Commonwealth to prove a defendant was criminally responsible for their conduct is for the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct, and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.”
Thus, Lindsey Clancy had to know or understand that her conduct was either illegal or wrong. And it has to be in a “meaningful way.”
Massachusetts makes it easy for someone to claim insanity after committing a heinous crime. Nonetheless, there is no way the defense attorney should say the juror was not following the law. He obviously interpreted the evidence and found her sane enough beyond a reasonable doubt. No one can prove otherwise. And he kept a child killer locked up in the sanitarium.
The approach in Massachusetts law is the same as the mindset judges use when they release dangerous criminals.