In the case of Lindsey Clancy, who is charged with the murder of three children in the United States, the jury (judgement panel) could not reach a unanimous decision, and a 'mistrial' (trial was canceled). Now the case is likely to be resumed. But this incident is not just a criminal case anymore, it has raised serious questions about motherhood, psychiatry, crime and society's thousands of years old view of 'mother'.
A mother cradling her baby in her arms is considered the ultimate symbol of protection in many cultures around the world. Mother is imagined as the first home, the first shelter and the first protector.
But, when the story is reversed, that is, when the same mother kills her own child, then one sees it not only from the point of view of a crime; Deep social and cultural beliefs about motherhood are felt to be challenged.
Perhaps this is the reason why the case of Lindsay Clancy of Massachusetts, USA, has attracted so much attention.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor-delivery nurse, is accused of killing her three children (five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Kalan) on January 24, 2023. Her defense has focused on Clancy's mental breakdown rather than her death, which raises another serious question: Was Clancy suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time?
According to the defense, due to her mental condition, she had lost the ability to understand reality and the nature of her actions. But the prosecution's claim is completely different. According to the prosecution, Clancy's actions showed clear signs of planning, purpose and awareness of the consequences of his actions.
The jury also split between these two opposing interpretations. After a 22-day trial, the jury deliberated for seven days and could not reach a unanimous verdict. Ultimately, Judge William Sullivan declared the case a mistrial. The prosecution will now have to decide whether to retry the case or plead guilty to a lesser charge. Clancy is currently being held at Tewkesbury Hospital without bail.
However, Clancy's story can hardly be explained by modern court definitions alone.
About 2,500 years ago, human civilization had imagined the story of a mother killing her own children. That character was Medea. Medea in Greek myth was powerful and skilled in magic. She fell in love with Jason and left her family and homeland for him. But love turns to revenge when Jason leaves her and tries to marry another woman.
Euripides has also brought this myth into play. In his famous play Medea, Medea kills Jason's new wife and also kills her own children.
Medea's story is not just a 'bad mother' story. It mixes love, betrayal, power, gender inequality, anger and revenge. But the most frightening part of it is that motherhood, which is connected with security and life, can also turn into violence.
That paradox has kept Medea alive in myth and literature thousands of years later.
Medea is not alone in killing children. In Greek myth, Lamia is also associated with grief and destruction after the loss of her children. She was later portrayed as a demon-woman who kills or eats other people's children.
Similarly, the story of Procne is connected with the murder of his own children. In the story that her husband Tereus sexually assaulted her sister and tried to cover up the truth, Procne finally learns the truth and kills her own son Itys in revenge.
The stories of these three characters are different, but they share a common fear – the mother, imagined as a life-giver, turns into a life-terminator.
Also, in another Greek myth, Agave kills her own son, King Pentheus of Thebes. In Euripides' play 'The Box', there is a story of Agave being under the influence of the god Dionysus, who went into a frenzy and attacked and killed his own son Pentheus thinking he was a wild animal. It is only after returning to Hos that Agave discovers that the man she killed was her own son Pentheus.
Along with the traditional image of a mother's love and protection for her children, even in Hindu mythology, there are also some stories where the child dies at the hands of the mother. A famous example of this is the story of Goddess Ganga and Ashtavasus. Due to the curse of sage Vashishta, the eight Vasus had to take birth as human beings on earth. Not wanting to live a long human life, they asked Goddess Ganga to be their mother and set them free as soon as they were born. Ganga agreed to their request and married King Shantanu, but on the condition that none of her deeds be questioned. She took the first seven sons born after that and drowned them in the Ganges as soon as they were born, from which it is believed that they were instantly freed from the curse. When the eighth child was born, King Shantanu could not stop himself and saved the child's life by stopping the Ganges. This child later became famous as Devvrata i.e. Bhishma.
Similarly, in another story, it is mentioned that Satyabhama killed his own son Narakasura. When Narakasura started committing atrocities, Satyabhama killed him because of the boon that could only come from his own mother. These stories present motherhood in the Hindu mythological tradition as a complex concept associated not only with protection and affection, but also with offspring's karma, boons, curses, religion, and world order.
But it is not fair to compare Lindsay Clancy directly with mythical characters like Medea, Lamia, Procne, Agave or Ganges. Clancy is a real woman and the accused in a real criminal case. And the real heart of Clancy's case is to what extent can serious mental illness alter a person's criminal responsibility?
America has faced similar questions before. In 2001, Texas woman Andrea Yates killed her five children. In her case, the question of serious mental illness, post-partum mental illness and legal 'insanity' came to the fore.
Although convicted in the first trial, he was found not criminally responsible on retrial due to his mental state. He was then placed under mental health care.
This is why Yates's case is so important in Clancy's case. In both cases, the mother is accused of killing her own child, and in both cases, questions of postpartum mental health and criminal responsibility have become decisive.
Philip Resnick, the psychiatrist in Clancy's case, said he was in a psychotic state at the time of the murder. Resnick was also involved as an expert in the Yates case. But the prosecution presented another picture of Clancy's mental state.
'Psychosis' or 'Plan'?
This is the biggest legal battle in the Clancy case. According to the defense, after the birth of her third child, Clancy suffered a severe mental crisis. He was given treatment and medication and his condition gradually worsened. The defense has claimed that he heard a voice commanding him during the killing and was in a state of detachment from reality.
According to the prosecution, she killed the children after sending her husband out of the house. Thus the same event is interpreted by two parties in two completely different languages. And the case has not been resolved. In other words, the defense is presenting her as a mentally deranged mother, while the prosecution is presenting her as an accused who understands the purpose and consequences of her actions.
Another unusual party to the case is Clancy's then-husband Patrick Clancy. Having lost three of his children, he has not made Lindsay a "monstrous" woman in public. Instead, he accepted his mental health crisis and said he forgave him.
This makes the case more complex than a typical crime story. The relationship between the family of the victim and the family of the accused is also unusually linked in this case.
Some of Clancy's supporters see the case not just as a homicide case, but as a possible example of the failure of the maternal mental health system. In particular, women who have struggled with their own postpartum mental health issues have raised questions about mental health treatment, identification and support systems around the issue.
Why does the media look at 'mother' differently?
Clancy's case also raises another question: Why does the media emphasize women's faces, beauty, profession, marriage and motherhood so much in such cases? Clancy was educated, employed, married and a mother of three. So many people have an instinctive reaction: 'How can a woman who looks like this do such a thing?'
But social bias may be hidden in this question. Beauty is not proof of innocence. Motherhood is not proof of innocence. Likewise, mental illness is not an automatic excuse for crime. The law must ultimately look to the evidence and the legal meaning of the mental state. A person's appearance, family role or societal image of a 'good mother' should not be judged.
After the mistrial, the prosecution now has some options. He could be tried again for first-degree murder or take a plea deal for a lesser charge. If there is a second trial (trial), the evidence, expert witnesses and mental health arguments will come before the court again. The fairness of the jury and the transfer of the case may also arise.
That is, the mistrial has not ended the case, but rather pushed it to the next legal stage. But whatever the legal verdict, Clancy's story will leave a profound social question.
Thousands of years ago, humans created myths to explain the story of mothers killing their own children. There were certain reasons behind those events. Even in the modern society, such incidents are happening at random and the root cause of them is not in the myth; Looking into psychiatry, neuroscience and the courts. And the specific question is the same: Can a mother, while loving her children, reach such a mentally deranged state, where she herself becomes a danger to her children? Human civilization has been asking this question for thousands of years. The difference is that earlier the answer was sought in myths, today it is being sought in evidence, science and law.
