site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   3154 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 23, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The strong argument is basically:

  1. Some crimes shouldn't result in a "guilty verdict" because of mental illness.

  2. Lindsay had one of those illnesses at the time of the murder therefore she was not "responsible."*

  3. Which illness she had is a bit vague - post-partum psychosis and bipolar have been passed around as possible explanations.

The weaker argument is basically:

  1. "No, no, the husband did it!"**

The weaker argument is far more common than is in any way acceptable. It is also very stupid. The strong argument is very strong and is the rule of the land - not guilty by reason of insanity is a thing and should be a thing. If it applies to her case or not is a technical discussion, which is causing problems.

*There are very specific rules for this and this really should be the case. "I have borderline personality disorder, a DSM recognized mental illness, therefore I can get away with murder" ...we have decided that's bullshit, and that seems a reasonable decision. "My grandma got sent to jail because she attacked her nurse because her UTI made her temporarily crazy" is also bullshit and not sending her to prison is a good decision for society.

**A side game here appears to be liberal, privileged white women who cannot imagine a woman would do something bad for any reason. For them it seems easy to imagine a man killing his kids but a woman.

I have also seen the argument float around that she is actually the victim of a society which didn't take her mental illness seriously until it was too late. This is happening to many other parents which is why they relate. I just don't quite think that works when

  1. She killed her own kids. That's a bit like saying Joaquin Phoenix's Joker was not responsible for the murders he committed.

  2. Much of the support is either in the form of denying she did it or "I understand, I want to kill my children too".

There is a strong element of the very popular "anti-psychiatry" and "anti-healthcare" trends. This is absurdly popular online you can see lots of stories of "I brought my husband to the doctor so they would listen" and so on. Never mind that most healthcare workers are female.

In this case it's stupid because she was clearly doctor shopping, signed herself out of inpatient care, and at best lied about her symptoms to multiple people involved in her care.

These kind of people don't let facts get in the way however.

In this case, I think there's an even bigger issue: she made no effort to mitigate the effects of her purported illness on others. If you are truly seeking treatment for an illness that is widely recognized as threatening to others--particularly vulnerable others you have special responsibilities toward, you have a duty to put their safety over your own. Why didn't she separate herself from her kids? Why didn't she tell her husband "I'm not getting the care I need, I'm going to stay somewhere else for a while."? It's not "anti-psychiatry" and "anti-healthcare" trends that cause this. It is entitlement. "Healthcare exists to ensure I don't have to make any sacrifices. I'm already struggling, why should I have to take on these burdens. They failed me."

It’s the toaster-fucker problem again. I think it’s well established that parents sometimes feel dark impulses towards their children: my friend had a child in the very conservative Japan and one of the pieces of official advice the prep classes emphasise most is, ‘no matter how annoying it is or how angry you get, DON’T SHAKE THE BABY’.

In common society this is considered unfortunate and shameful, to be explained quietly only to the relevant parties and not to be said in public. Most certainly not in front of your now-grown children!

But now the internet is making what was quietly and implicitly known into something explicit. Parents are going ‘wait, you wanted to literally kill your children too?’ and experiencing this as catharsis instead of mutual shame. America’s confessional culture and no-woman-is-ever-at-fault-unless-she’s-trad feminism is then turbo-boosting this phenomenon.

not guilty by reason of insanity is a thing and should be a thing.

Why?

Please see example of Grandma above.

**A side game here appears to be liberal, privileged white women who cannot imagine a woman would do something bad for any reason

I've seen at least one joke based on the liberal white women premise that's been floating around, something like: "nothing liberal white women will fight for harder than the freedom to kill their children." My favorite joke/meme so far is the more lighthearted Hasbulla crossover.

Indeed, it is interesting how monolithically white Clancy supporters are. It's rather comical, the sight of them gathered up in coordinated pink shirts like it's a sorority bake sale, where their gesture of support for Clancy resembles a strangling motion. Not even trying to beat the meme gender allegations.

  1. "No, no, the husband did it!"

If they really thought he did it, though, they'd be writing him love letters and sending him bikini pics and stuff.

Thanks for the write up. The strong argument makes sense to me. I can get how someone may or may not agree with it and don’t know enough about the case to judge it. If she’s insane or not is a factual question which, as shown by both sides having doctors testify for them, isn’t super clear cut.

The weak man argument to me seems to just be grasping for straws/motivated reasoning to avoid saying “this woman did a very evil act.” This does seem to be a time where the uncharitable explanation does indeed describe a lot of the supporters of one side.

I don't buy the insanity defense. I can't think of a mother I know that wouldn't do suicide attempts till success if she did such thing in a moment of blackout. It is just not something you can live with when the haze over your brain lifts.

A side game here appears to be liberal, privileged white women who cannot imagine a woman would do something bad for any reason. For them it seems easy to imagine a man killing his kids but a woman.

Just giving flesh to the meme that the only thing white liberal women really fear is accountability.

I don't buy the insanity defense. I can't think of a mother I know that wouldn't do suicide attempts till success if she did such thing in a moment of blackout. It is just not something you can live with when the haze over your brain lifts.

This cuts both ways - the murders were probably not cold blooded, if they were she wouldn't have tried to kill herself and she would have done things in a way that she could have had a life afterwards. The cause of the behavior was probably something else - a formal personality disorder (ex: Borderline), issues of general personality structure, or "less serious" mental illness (like postpartum depression, other forms of depression, or anxiety) interacting with stressors and other features of her environment. These things should not impair her "reality testing" and should leave her with an understanding that what she is doing is morally wrong and a shitty idea. That type of explanation is going to function pretty similarly to a psychotic state in terms of feeling miserable about events afterwards. For both she'd end up with some pretty hefty treatment afterwards to try and reduce the impulse to suicide. They'd look the same three years later, at least looking from the outside as we are.

Just giving flesh to the meme that the only thing white liberal women really fear is accountability.

Much as my impulse is to give them zero credit I can't really do that here. Most people are aware of men as the sex of violence and killing, and some people are aware of "family annihilator" crime (as this may have been) and when that happens it almost always men. If you live in a bubble with little crime than you just aren't going to see the existence of cases like this or of women committing violence, which does happen in the real world but not in their milieu.

Most people are aware of men as the sex of violence and killing, and some people are aware of "family annihilator" crime (as this may have been) and when that happens it almost always men.

If indeed it is true "family annihilators" are almost always men, it would only make it even more striking that, to my knowledge, a male defendant has yet to have men show up en masse to his courtroom in color-coordinated outfits to show him their support. To the extent male family annihilators had/have supporters, it coded/codes heavily female, to say the least (e.g., Chris Watts, Scott Peterson, Jeffery MacDonald).

The strong argument is very strong and is the rule of the land - not guilty by reason of insanity is a thing and should be a thing. If it applies to her case or not is a technical discussion, which is causing problems.

*There are very specific rules for this and this really should be the case.

The problem with this is that women's behaviors have historically been attributed to "mental illness" to a far greater degree than men's, and this disparity has been widely criticized as sexist against women due to the negative impacts it has on women. To fall back on that defense in this case because it is beneficial smells a lot like women wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

The problem with this is that women's behaviors have historically been attributed to "mental illness" to a far greater degree than men's, and this disparity has been widely criticized as sexist against women due to the negative impacts it has on women.

Sounds like a good opportunity for a 4chan troll campaign: Support for Lindsay! Because holding women criminal defendants up to male criminal defendant standards of culpability is a misogynistic form of ableism.

To fall back on that defense in this case because it is beneficial smells a lot like women wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Ah, so another day that ends in a "y." The usual Schrodinger's feminism: Women are just as emotionally stable and resilient as men, but are simultaneously more emotionally vulnerable due to hormones/post-partum depression/the patriarchy/etc. so they need additional care and support.

Because female hysteria is a real thing. That our society chooses to pretend women are as mentally/emotionally strong and healthy as men doesn't invalidate that.

While the information I have is somewhat limited, with the information I have I do not believe she was afflicted by a psychiatric condition that would make her not guilty. It is worth noting that she was examined by one of the gods of forensic healthcare and while he is somewhat doddering at this time he did side with the defense (and has more information than I do).

All of that being said, what you are saying is both somewhat untrue historically (and is more of a meme than anything) and is very specifically not applicable to the conditions being evaluated in this case (ex: psychosis).

This is a complex technical discussion involving healthcare and legal structures, people trying to shove the culture war into it are walking into a long running conversation with limited understanding.

I was referring to the reaction to the case by onlookers the OP was asking about ("I’m more asking about the people online arguing that she is a victim and her being prosecuted/this situation is an example of sexism."), which I think is based far more on this level of "culture warring" than on the technical details of the case.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats