In The News

Blood Cries Out: The Lindsay Clancy Case and the Error of Modern Mercy

by Cecil Maner
09/09/26
Free to Share
Author requests article critique

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

The facts of the Lindsay Clancy case are not in serious dispute. On January 24, 2023, she deliberately applied exercise bands to the necks of her three young children—Cora, Dawson, and Callan—until they were strangled. Two died that night; the infant died days later from the same asphyxia. She then attempted to end her own life. The defense conceded the physical acts. What remains contested under Massachusetts law is whether severe postpartum mental disturbance and the effects of psychiatric medication rendered her not criminally responsible. A jury hung, leaning heavily toward that conclusion, and a mistrial was declared. Modern law treats this outcome as a careful application of due process and the presumption of innocence. Biblical law treats it as a failure of righteous judgment.

Scripture declares that “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Mental distress, auditory phenomena, rage, and the influence of substances have always existed among fallen humanity. Ancient Israel knew madness, demonic affliction, and intoxication. Yet the Mosaic civil code never erected a formal exemption that converts deliberate killing into non-culpable conduct on those grounds. The law draws a clear line between intentional murder and unintentional manslaughter, and it does so without creating a third category for psychosis or medication.

The Sixth Commandment forbids murder: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Genesis 9:6 grounds the penalty in the image of God: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19 distinguish the cases with precision. Killing “with enmity,” or by lying in wait, or by deliberate use of a deadly means is murder; the perpetrator must die, and no city of refuge is open to him. Killing without enmity or prior intent—through sudden accident—is manslaughter; refuge is available. The criteria are objective and outward: Was there hatred? Was there planning or sequential application of force? Was a lethal instrument employed intentionally? The text does not inquire into internal psychiatric diagnoses or chemical balances. Filicide receives no lighter treatment. The deliberate killing of children is condemned with particular force, especially in the prohibitions against child sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2–5). Parental responsibility heightens, rather than diminishes, the gravity of the offence.

In the Clancy case the acts themselves display the marks of intention under this standard. She secured her husband’s absence by sending him on errands whose duration she had calculated. She took each child in turn and applied the bands until life was extinguished. She then turned the violence upon herself. These are not the marks of pure accident. Modern advocates may argue that command hallucinations or medication effects destroyed her capacity to appreciate wrongfulness. Biblical law does not accept that claim as a bar to capital liability. Drunkenness and disordered minds are acknowledged and often condemned, yet they are not permitted to rewrite the categories of homicide. Being under the influence or in mental turmoil is treated as a moral and spiritual failure, not as a legal solvent that dissolves responsibility for deliberate bloodshed.

Massachusetts law, by contrast, elevates a high evidentiary barrier—“proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of both the mental elements of murder and the presence of criminal responsibility—and allows an affirmative defense of lack of substantial capacity due to mental disease or defect. When expert testimony about postpartum psychosis and command voices is introduced, a jury may hang or acquit even though the physical causation of the deaths is conceded. This framework inverts the biblical priority. It privileges subjective internal states, modern diagnostic categories, and the possibility of residual doubt over the objective character of the act and the sanctity of the image of God in the victims. The result is that the blood of three children cries out while the legal system frets over the perpetrator’s capacity and the precision of psychiatric labelling. That is not mercy ordered by justice; it is the abdication of the magistrate’s duty, for “he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:4).

Righteous judgment requires that the scales be held steady according to the standard God has revealed, not according to the evolving sentiments of a culture that has largely abandoned the fear of the Lord. Intentional murder, especially the murder of one’s own children, remains a capital offence under the law given to Israel. The existence of mental disturbance “under the sun” does not erase the distinction between deliberate and accidental killing, nor does it create a safe harbour for those who take life by calculated force. When modern courts treat severe mental illness as functionally extinguishing culpability in such a case, they do not refine justice; they obscure it. The biblical verdict is clear: the one who deliberately sheds innocent blood bears the guilt, and the community that refuses to uphold the penalty shares in the disorder.