WOULD WE GIVE A MAN THE SAME EXCUSE?

WOULD WE GIVE A MAN THE SAME EXCUSE? The Lindsay Clancy trial bothered me for another reason I haven’t really discussed. Eleven jurors were prepared to find her not criminally responsible for killing her three children. One man refused to go along, the jury deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. The jury was actually nine women and three men, but the lone holdout was male. God bless that man for being willing to stand alone when eleven people were ready to go the other way. Here’s what I want to ask the women defending this outcome. Do you understand the door you’re opening? Because once we start moving criminal responsibility away from what someone did and toward what their hormones, biology, mental state, or impulses were doing at the time, you had better be prepared for that argument to walk into other courtrooms. Imagine a woman is raped and the defense attorney starts talking about the attacker’s testosterone levels, sexual impulses, brain chemistry, psychiatric history, medication, trauma, or impaired judgment. Would you accept that? Would you listen sympathetically while his lawyer explained how male biology influenced his behavior? I seriously doubt it. You would want him held responsible for what he chose to do to that woman. That is exactly why this conversation matters. Look at Timothy Jones Jr. He murdered all five of his children and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. His lawyers argued that schizophrenia left him unable to distinguish right from wrong. The jury had the option of finding him not guilty by reason of insanity and rejected it. Six hours and fifteen minutes later, he was guilty of five murders. The same jury took one hour and fifty minutes to sentence him to death. Nobody built a national movement around excusing Timothy Jones because his mind was sick. Nobody demanded that the murders be viewed primarily through the lens of his psychiatric condition. He killed his children and society demanded accountability. Now we have a mother who admittedly killed three children, and much of the public discussion has shifted toward what happened inside her mind and body instead of whether the same standard of criminal responsibility should apply. That is the part I cannot get past. Compassion and accountability are not enemies. You can recognize that someone was profoundly mentally ill without automatically erasing responsibility for what happened. Once you decide biology or mental illness can excuse one class of violent behavior, don’t act shocked when another defense attorney tries to stretch the same reasoning somewhere you absolutely hate. The law cannot become sympathetic based on sex. Either criminal responsibility has a consistent standard or eventually the word “justice” means whatever we want it to mean for the defendant we feel sorry for. #MoreJoyMinistries