Lindsay Clancy is guilty. I am done listening to the people who are trying to excuse this woman’s heinous crime. No, I do not care what medication she was on. I do not care what voices were going on in her head. I do not care that the system supposedly failed her. I do not care. All of that grievance goes out the window once you murder your children.
If we want to have a conversation about the mental health system in America and whether it actually helps people or not, we can. However, we can also punish people who kill their kids. The time to be helped is before the kids are killed, not after. Once you kill your kids, you get no help. End of story.
The worst part about all of this is the number of women I am seeing who think that the defense actually has a point in their arguments. And then they have the gall to wonder why their boyfriends are breaking up with them over this. Are you kidding me? Let us turn this around for a moment. Let’s say that a woman was raped and murdered. Let us then also say that the man who did the deed was mentally ill. The defense’s argument is that this man did not get the help he needed and thus the jury ought to give a lesser sentence based upon this revelation.
Imagine then, if you will, the reaction and outrage of women everywhere if there was a large segment of men that went “you know what? I agree with the defense’s argument. The guy shouldn’t be given a harsh sentence.” Would anyone fault a woman for breaking up with her boyfriend should he give such an argument?
Of course not. What we are seeing is yet another clear double standard in gender politics. The grace we are all expected to extend to women who commit crimes is in no way shape or form given to men who do the same thing. You wouldn’t even dare think about doing it without everyone writing you off as a horrible person.
This brings up another issue. If we should let Clancy walk because of so-called hormonal imbalances, are we indirectly giving the argument that women are slaves to their hormones, and thus should not be allowed any form of political or civil rights? Her defenders would say no and gasp at you suggesting such a thing, but such a thing is the inevitable end result of their argument. You can’t declare yourself a slave and then expect to participate in free society.
We already have a word to describe those who are a slave to their impulses and act in a violent manner: psychopaths.
These people always do this. They make this grand argument that is meant to show how big-brained and intelligent they are but all it does is make them look horrible, and then they berate you for pointing this out because in their minds, it was making them look virtuous.
Now, am I saying that all women are defending Lindsay Clancy? No. Of course they aren’t. This is obviously just a loud minority of women, half of whom hate men and the other half of whom have been fooled into believing some big-brained argument given in bad faith that makes them look intelligent to anyone without a brain.
I also find it interesting that men, who are usually derided as the more violent gender, are on the front lines standing against child murder, yet again being twisted around by the big-brained dumb people as some slight against women with insidious intentions.
Long story short, I believe this woman should be found guilty and given the death penalty. The jury has been deliberating for the past two days, and we might see a verdict tonight. I worry that if the verdict is a walk or a lesser sentence, then it opens a whole can of worms where other crazy women will give a Clancy defense after killing their own children.
Tell me in the comments, are my fears warranted? Does this not seem like a clear-cut case? Is child murder bad no matter the context?
Thank you for reading, if you enjoyed, please consider the following:
Donating via buymeacoffee
Subscribing to the YouTube Channel
Checking out a previous article
One Response
Hello