The Question of Criminal Responsibility
Is Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible for killing her children? That was the question posed to the twelve jurors tasked with determining the outcome of a trial involving a mother who murdered her daughter and two sons. The question was not whether Clancy killed her children. Both the prosecution and defense agreed that she had. Nor was the question whether taking innocent human life is wrong. Massachusetts law recognizes first- and second-degree murder, as well as manslaughter as criminal offenses. Scripture clearly teaches the inherent value of human life along with the seriousness of taking it.
Instead, the dispute centered on a different question: Should Clancy be held criminally responsible for strangling her three innocent children?
The answer put forward by Lindsay’s legal counsel was no. Her attorneys argued that she should not be held criminally responsible because, at the time of the killings, she was allegedly suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and mental illness that rendered her incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of her actions. In legal terms, Clancy’s attorneys argued that she was “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI).
The trial quickly gained national attention. Hundreds of people who empathized with Clancy’s condition rallied outside the courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Online, many advocated for Lindsay’s freedom, arguing that she should be viewed as someone in need of psychiatric treatment rather than criminal punishment. Many who followed the case were surprised when the jury itself became divided over the question of criminal responsibility, leading the judge to declare a mistrial.
When Compassion and Justice Intersect
The deeper issue raised by this case extends beyond the courtroom. Can compassion for an offender who is suffering coexist with a commitment to justice for those whom they have harmed? That question matters not only because of this particular case, but because we as Christians regularly encounter circumstances in which suffering, wrongdoing, compassion, and justice intersect. Are there valid reasons for limiting or excusing moral responsibility when someone has committed a serious offense? Should mental illness or suffering be used as rationale for pardoning behavior that would otherwise be criminal or sinful? And how should believers respond when our desire to show compassion may cause us to overlook the suffering experienced by those whom that person has harmed?
Compassion and justice are not opposing virtues. Both are important. Neither should be allowed to abolish the other. The Bible instructs believers to pursue both. God’s Word calls believers to extend compassion to others (Ep. 4:32, Col. 3:12) including those who experience suffering (1 Th. 5:14). At the same time, it also instructs us to uphold justice and recognize the seriousness of sin.
Circumstances like those surrounding Lindsay Clancy bring the tension between these two principles to the forefront of our hearts and minds. They challenge us not only to discern the appropriate response toward wrongdoing, but also to cultivate the right attitude toward someone who has endured profound suffering. All the while, not forgetting the pain inflicted upon those harmed by that person’s actions.
A Biblical Lesson from David and Absalom
But what happens when our compassion for someone causes us to overlook the harm that person has caused? What happens when our empathy for the suffering of the offender eclipses our obligation to pursue justice for those who they hurt? I believe the Bible’s account of David, Absalom, and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13-15 offers a valuable illustration.
In 2 Samuel 13, we find the disturbing story of King David’s son Amnon, who became obsessed with his half-sister Tamar and orchestrated an opportunity to violate her. After learning what had happened, Tamar’s brother Absalom arranged for Amnon the criminal to be killed by his servants in vengeance for forcing himself upon his sister. Absalom then fled to Geshur, where he remained for three years, outside his father’s jurisdiction (2 Sa 13:1-38).
Why did Absalom flee? Under the Mosaic Law, Absalom’s deliberate killing of Amnon constituted premeditated murder (Ex. 21:12-14, Nu. 35:16-21), an offense punishable by death. Yet David, clearly grieved by what happened (2 Sa. 13:39), took no formal punitive action against his son. The Bible tells us that David was deeply troubled by what had happened, and it also makes clear that his heart longed for Absalom. Eventually, David permitted Absalom to return to Jerusalem, although he refused to see him for another two years. Eventually, David extended forgiveness and reconciled with his son (2 Sa. 14:24, 28, 33).
David’s response illustrates an important danger. Personal affection and compassion for someone we care about can complicate our willingness to administer justice. This danger matters because justice does not simply become irrelevant due to the suffering of the one who committed an offense. Absalom’s grief for his sister didn’t nullify his guilt for killing his brother.
In fact, David’s failure to decisively address Amnon’s violation of his sister or the vengeful actions of Absalom did not resolve the underlying problems within his family. Instead, it helped set the stage for Absalom’s future rebellion. In the years that followed, Absalom stood at the city gate, presenting himself as someone who would provide the people with adequate access to justice, in contrast to his father. Eventually, he cultivated enough popular support to launch a rebellion that eventually drove David from his throne (2 Sa. 1-13).
Compassion Cannot Replace Justice
The lesson here is not that compassion is inherently dangerous. Rather, it is that compassion cannot become a substitute for justice. At the same time, followers of Jesus should remember that justice does not require us to become indifferent to suffering. We are not called to stop showing mercy simply because someone has done wrong. On the contrary. Scripture repeatedly instructs believers to demonstrate mercy, kindness, patience, and compassion. We are called to “bear one another’s burdens” (Ga. 6:2). Christlike compassion doesn’t cease to matter simply because the person suffering may also be responsible for causing harm.
Balancing Empathy with Accountability
This is where the balance between empathy and justice becomes particularly important. Empathy asks us to recognize the suffering of another person. Justice asks us to recognize that actions have consequences and that those who have been wronged also deserve to have their suffering acknowledged. These are not necessarily opposing principles. Both can coexist.
We can have compassion for a person without excusing the wrong they have done. We can also acknowledge suffering without declaring every action committed by that person to be morally or legally excusable. We can recognize when someone has experienced profound suffering without allowing that anguish to erase the suffering experienced by others. In other words, we can desire mercy without concluding that justice no longer matters.
This distinction is especially relevant when considering circumstances like those surrounding Lindsay Clancy. Clearly her case involves profound suffering. Her defense attorneys argued that her mental condition prevented her from understanding the immorality of her actions, whereas the prosecution disputed the claim.
Though legal and moral responsibility are related, they are not always identical issues. Courts must determine whether a defendant meets the applicable legal standard for criminal responsibility. Christians, however, rely upon God’s Word to evaluate a person’s actions in light of what God says about sin, accountability, justice, mercy, human dignity, and the value of those who have been harmed. This helps us to avoid two opposite errors. We do not have to dismiss someone’s suffering to acknowledge that serious wrongdoing has occurred. Similarly, we do not have to minimize the gravity of sin to extend empathy toward someone afflicted with suffering.
So, how should we respond when we encounter someone suffering from mental issues evokes genuine compassion, but whose actions have also caused devastating harm? The answer cannot be to suppress affection. Nor can it be to allow compassion to make us indifferent to justice. Instead, as Christians, we must learn to look at someone who is suffering, have empathy, and at the same time acknowledge that what happened to those they harmed matters. This is not a contradiction. It’s an attempt to take both mercy and justice seriously.
The Cross: Where Justice and Mercy Meet
Recognizing this tension is one of the reasons followers of Christ appreciate and celebrate Jesus’ sacrificial and atoning death on the cross. The cross is the greatest demonstration of God’s perfect justice converging with His perfect mercy. God deeply and compassionately loves everyone He created, AND His perfectly just nature compels Him to punish sin. Motivated by that very love and empathy, Jesus willingly offered Himself as payment for our sin in our stead (Ro. 3:21-26). His atoning sacrifice satisfied the justice God demands, while at the same time demonstrated His unfathomable love.
At the cross, justice was not discarded to make room for mercy. Mercy was extended without compromising justice. God didn’t abandon His promise to punish evil simply because humanity suffered the effects of sin. Instead, Christ willingly bore the penalty for sin so that God could remain just while also justifying the sinner. Jesus took our place. Jesus suffered our punishment. Jesus paid our ransom. God’s justice demanded payment. His love moved Him to extend mercy. In Christ, He accomplished both.
That is ultimately the example we should keep in mind when thinking about empathy and justice. We don’t have to choose between compassion for those who suffer and concern for those whom they’ve harmed. We can empathize with those who suffer while acknowledging the reality of consequences for wrongdoing and affirming the need for justice.
Responding with Truth, Compassion, and Justice
The deaths of the three Clancy children should not be reduced to an abstract debate about mental illness, postpartum psychosis, or criminal responsibility. Whatever conclusions are ultimately reached regarding Lindsay Clancy's legal responsibility, three children died. Their lives had inherent value. Their deaths matter. Their father’s grief matters. And if Lindsay was truly suffering from profound mental issues, her suffering matters as well.
It is precisely for that reason that every aspect leading to the deaths of these three children be thoroughly examined to ensure they’re honored with the justice they deserve. Taking Clancy’s psychological suffering seriously does not require ignoring the damage and pain caused by her actions.
In the rush to offer empathy, the temptation to abandon justice should not be permitted. There are consequences for sin. Compassion for someone battling mental issues doesn’t negate the inherent immorality of their actions, nor the harm it causes. Thus, a decision to hold someone criminally responsible for killing children cannot be decided based on feelings. This is why carefully, cautiously, and comprehensively exercising wisdom is so important when trying to have compassion while preserving the need for justice.
God did not abandon His standard of justice despite His compassion for us. Likewise, we must refrain from letting sympathy exceed the moral and legal necessity for correcting wrongs. That said, just as God was not heartless or merciless, we too must not become callous, forgetting our empathy for those who suffer. May He grant us the wisdom to recognize both the suffering of the offender, the anguish of the victim, and the grace to respond with truth, compassion, justice, and mercy.