I have been reading more of these stories. Women accused of stabbing, shooting, or strangling their own children.
A South Carolina mother, Taylor Gosnell, is charged with stabbing her six-year-old son and three-year-old daughter. Police say the children had about 50 knife wounds.
In Texas, Colleen Lemmon is charged with capital murder after she allegedly shot her two sons and told officers, “I shot both my kids.”
I cannot prove the number of mothers killing or attempting to murder their children is rising. I can say what I fear.
Lindsay Clancy admitted to killing her three young children, and a great many women flooded social media to identify with her and support her. I worry this kind of support taught someone else that “not guilty by reason of insanity” is a way to get away with murdering their children.
Eleven jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, jurors later told NBC10 Boston. One juror would not. The judge declared a mistrial on September 4. Afterward, the holdout juror was publicly scrutinized and criticized. His lawyer says he had no doubt about Clancy's guilt. The other jurors claimed he admitted reasonable doubt and still refused to acquit, which he outright denies.
He was more scrutinized than the woman who admitted to strangling her three children. Think about that for a moment. What message are we sending?
Not guilty by reason of insanity is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. In most states it means commitment, not a walk out the door. But the verdict still begins with the words “not guilty,” and that is what a family hears.
This is personal for me.
My grandmother’s sister suffered from mental illness. She had doctors. She had medication. She had help. When she chose not to take her medication, my mother, then a child, paid the price. Her aunt physically abused her. She could have killed my mother.
Had my mother been murdered, would my family have been expected to accept a verdict that began with “not guilty” because her attacker was mentally ill?
Had my mother died, I would not be here. My children would not be here. That is how far the consequences of one innocent life can reach.
That is why I believe it is time to change the terminology.
Not guilty by reason of insanity should become guilty by reason of insanity.
I understand the current verdict. It is a finding about criminal responsibility, not a finding that the defendant did not commit the act. I’m not asking the law to pretend mental illness does not exist, and I am not asking for a different sentence by another name. Some states already have guilty but mentally ill, and that is a conviction. That is a separate debate.
This one is about the words.
If it has been established that someone committed the act, the justice system should never label that person not guilty. The insanity portion of the verdict can still acknowledge the defendant’s condition. The word “guilty” acknowledges what happened.
Children were killed. Human life was taken. Family lost people they loved. Those facts do not disappear because the person responsible was mentally ill.
Especially when, as in Clancy’s case, she admitted to killing all three of her children. That was a heinous crime. The verdict should be able to say so.
In this case, words do matter. They matter to the victims, their families, and they matter to us.
Guilty by reason of insanity acknowledges the crime and the illness. Yes, both can be true.
I understand insanity laws differ from state to state, so this is not one federal edit. Lawmakers can still ask whether the current language reflects what occurred when no one disputes who did it.
We can acknowledge mental illness without erasing the victim from the sentence. Every victim deserves that. They deserve justice.
Change “not guilty by reason of insanity” to “guilty by reason of insanity.” When someone has committed the act, the justice system should be able to say so.
Stacy Asencio-Sutphen is the Vice President of Publicity and Content at PTH Publicity/Part Time Hero Productions.
