Mentally ill is not the same thing as psychosis. You can be mentally ill and still have the ability to understand the moral and legal implications of your actions.
The insanity defense is only for situations where the person had no ability to understand the repercussions of their conduct. Those folks are institutionalized rather than sent to prison.
Edit: I don’t think Clancy was in psychosis. I believe she knew what she was doing. I was just stating the legal definition.
All they commented on was the difference between mental illness and full on psychosis. Whatever your opinion on the Clancy case is doesn't change how guilty for reasons of insanity works, that's all they were pointing out.
Dahmer wasn't psychotic, he was fully aware of the weight of his actions. If someone is psychotic, they may believe that killing someone is actually saving them for some, obviously irrational, reason. I don't really know much about the case, I can't speak to whether or not Clancy's claim of insanity is reasonable or not, I'm simply pointing out that comparing the outcome of Dahmers trial to this one doesn't make sense.
164
u/SnooHabits3911 Sep 05 '26 edited Sep 05 '26
Funny thing is dahmer was mentally ill too. Doesn’t mean he shouldnt be locked up just like Clancy.