@KellyJay saidIn a world full of child predators, pedophiles and child murders, China is my hero :
Did she kill them- yes or no? Did she send her husband out to do it, did she have to chase one of them down to do it? Where did you get your degree?
China’s top court has carried out multiple executions of individuals convicted of severe offenses against children.
Executions were reported in separate actions in November 2024 and May 2025. The Supreme People’s Court said the cases reflected China’s “zero tolerance” stance toward crimes against children.
Official reports released only the individuals’ surnames. The information comes from Chinese state media, so independent international verification is limited.
@no1marauder saidIt's not just the planning.
Planning and mental illness are not mutually exclusive.
I did not follow the case much and even someone who watched every detail presented on news shows would have far less information than the jury.
The definition you gave requires showing the illness "prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime". She showed both control and understanding of what she was doing.
I said earlier there were valid reasons for why most of the jury chose to acquit.
@vivify saidMaking something easier to do does not necessarily imply you know it is wrong and/or your mental state can prevent you from doing it.
It's not just the planning.
The definition you gave requires showing the illness "prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime". She showed both control and understanding of what she was doing.
I said earlier there were valid reasons for why most of the jury chose to acquit.
@vivify saidI’m not even denying she had issues, but those issues do not override the crime, making the death of those children any less. She committed it; forethought was involved, and even her grief afterward shows she knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
It's not just the planning.
The definition you gave requires showing the illness "prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime". She showed both control and understanding of what she was doing.
I said earlier there were valid reasons for why most of the jury chose to acquit.
3 edits
@KellyJay saidI agree. But that's not what the jury was voting on.
I’m not even denying she had issues, but those issues do not override the crime
The jury had to decide whether the defendant's mental state prevented her culpability. The jury was *not* asked to decide how serious the crime was.
@KellyJay saidwhat the jury heard from experts...
I’m not even denying she had issues, but those issues do not override the crime, making the death of those children any less. She committed it; forethought was involved, and even her grief afterward shows she knew it was wrong and did it anyway.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-mental-health-experts/
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNo. I don't think any reasonable person could just pretend they don't know 3 children were murdered including a baby.
are you serious? you think the jury was to ignore what she had done?
But legally speaking, that's not what the jury was to focus on.
@vivify saidof course they were to consider the seriousness of the child murders. if not for the murders there wouldnt be a trial.
No. I don't think any reasonable person could just pretend they don't know 3 children were murdered including a baby.
But legally speaking, that's not what the jury was to focus on.
do you feel this clancy is safe to return to society? now, or ever?
how do you ignore the experts that said this WASNT a temporary psychosis?
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou do realize that even if the jury had accepted the insanity defense she wouldn't have been simply released?
of course they were to consider the seriousness of the child murders. if not for the murders there wouldnt be a trial.
do you feel this clancy is safe to return to society? now, or ever?
how do you ignore the experts that said this WASNT a temporary psychosis?
She would been committed indefinitely to a secure psychiatric facility and released only if and when a judge found she was no longer mentally ill or a threat to the community.https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/lindsay-clancy-trial-guilty-lack-responsibility/story?id=136187449
@no1marauder saidno one said that. I asked what would be the timeline. would she eventually be released?
You do realize that even if the jury had accepted the insanity defense she wouldn't have been simply released?
She would been committed indefinitely to a secure psychiatric facility and released only if and when a judge found she was no longer mentally ill or a threat to the community.https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/lindsay-clancy-trial-guilty-lack-responsibility/story?id=136187449
it was testified she was being medicated. does one now have to take into account can a person ever recover from a mental condition.
this case is using the treatment as a defense of why she shouldnt be guilty.
it cant be both ways
6 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople saidA jury usually doesn't decide how serious a crime is, that's done prior to even getting a trial. Laws exist to cover how to proceed for each type crime and what charges to account for how serious it is long before it gets to trial.
of course they were to consider the seriousness of the child murders. if not for the murders there wouldnt be a trial.
do you feel this clancy is safe to return to society? now, or ever?
how do you ignore the experts that said this WASNT a temporary psychosis?
A jury typically only decides if conditions are met for guilt or innocence.
Do I feel she should return to society? My first thought is that with treatment and after serving time, yes, she should return to society. She has no record of mental health issues prior to post-partum, which is only temporary in women after birth.
But then, what if she were to give birth again? There'd be a risk of another child being murdered. Since we can't legally ban pregnancy that would be a problem. Maybe we can require that she seeks help if she gets pregnant again, but there's no real way to enforce that. So in my opinion, since she's already proven to be a danger to children, probably not.
I'm honestly not sure what the right call is.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHardly. That she was being treated for a mental condition is simply evidence she had one.
no one said that. I asked what would be the timeline. would she eventually be released?
it was testified she was being medicated. does one now have to take into account can a person ever recover from a mental condition.
this case is using the treatment as a defense of why she shouldnt be guilty.
it cant be both ways
I already told you; IF she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity (she wasn't), she'd be released only if and when a judge found she was no longer mentally ill or a danger to the community.
Is that unclear?
1 edit
@vivify saidIF a court finds that a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is eligible for release because they are no longer mentally ill, it can set such conditions as it sees fit.
A jury usually doesn't decide how serious a crime is, that's done prior to even getting a trial. Laws exist to cover how to proceed for each type crime and account for how serious it is long before it gets to trial.
A jury typically only decides if conditions are met for guilt or innocence.
Do I feel she should return to society? My first thought is that with treat ...[text shortened]... proven to be a danger to children, probably not.
I'm honestly not sure what the right call is.
@no1marauder saidAt some point many of these criminals who claim insanity are eventually released into the society where they kill people again and destroy the lives of thousands of people. Its best to execute these murderers as soon as possible.
You do realize that even if the jury had accepted the insanity defense she wouldn't have been simply released?
She would been committed indefinitely to a secure psychiatric facility and released only if and when a judge found she was no longer mentally ill or a threat to the community.https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/lindsay-clancy-trial-guilty-lack-responsibility/story?id=136187449
****************************
UK cases
The scale, per campaigners: The advocacy group Hundred Families, which tracks these cases, documents 279 known cases from 1993–2025 with 107 investigations and official reports in London alone, and separately reports at least 30 individuals confined by courts to mental health institutions who went on to commit murder after release, with the total having reached at least 33 murders since 1993 according to a January 2026 report.
Specific recent cases:
Zephaniah McLeod — a paranoid schizophrenic released from HMP Parc in April 2020 without mental health support in place, went on a 90-minute knife rampage through Birmingham in September 2020, killing Jacob Billington and wounding six others; a coroner ruled there were "lost opportunities" to manage his condition and criticized the lack of post-release support.
Troy Ramsundar (Brixton, March 2025) — a paranoid schizophrenic who fatally stabbed a vulnerable stranger, sentenced to life under a hybrid order.
Jordan Rodney (Hammersmith, June 2025) — schizophrenic, off his medication, fatally stabbed his cousin; convicted of murder, life sentence with 39-year minimum.
Lee Sowerby — twice given indefinite hospital orders and twice released, before fatally stabbing his mother in 2017.
Theodore Johnson — killed his first two wives, served two years in a secure hospital, was released, then killed again.
Sally Hodkin case (Bexley) — a mental health patient released under restriction killed a stranger in 2011, having already killed his mother in 2005; this one is still working through appeals in 2026.
These cases have driven UK political controversy over mental health tribunal releases, which — unlike parole board hearings — are typically closed to the public, and over gaps in post-release community mental health support.
********************************************