Here's what the law gets wrong about women. They're not sane or insane. They're either crazy, insane, OR a subset of humans that should have a different set of laws from men to govern their particular nuances.
>Go suck a penis then.
You proved my point: you'd have to be crazy.
Bottom line: Post-partum depression is part of being a woman for many, a responsibility and rite of passage for womanhood for which this crazy bitch was on her 3rd go-around. It's not "lack of substantial capacity".
The rule creating this dynamic is Massachusetts common law, established in Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967) (adopting the substantive test) and clarified for burden allocation in Commonwealth v. Kostka, 370 Mass. 516 (1976), with later reaffirmations (Commonwealth v. Keita, 429 Mass. 843 (1999); Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806 (2016)).
Once the defense introduces evidence sufficient to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible—i.e., that she did not lack substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law. Official Massachusetts model jury instructions on lack of criminal responsibility state the same allocation explicitly.
Number of other states: A small minority. After the 1982 Hinckley verdict, the large majority of states (and federal law) shifted the burden to the defendant, requiring proof of the defense by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence. Only a handful of jurisdictions still require the prosecution to prove criminal responsibility/sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once the issue is raised.
Specific to this case: Clancy admitted the killings. Her lawyers introduced psychiatric evidence of postpartum mental illness, claimed command hallucinations, and related capacity issues. That was enough to raise the issue under Massachusetts law. From that point the Commonwealth had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she retained substantial capacity despite the claimed condition. The defense did not have to prove the incapacity itself; residual doubt about capacity worked against the prosecution and contributed to the hung jury.
aka, massachusettes law basically says that you can be proven to have committed a crime, you can produce some evidence of partial incapacity/insanity and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you aren't incapacitated/insane, basically nullifying the finding of the crime. It's a nuanced policy of which they are wildly in the minority. For the truly and permanently insane, maybe it makes sense, but for these edge cases involving temporary insanity/incapacity, it's a big open door to committing horrendous crimes and getting off scot-free.
Get the fuck out of Massachusetts ASAP!
Yea, but that's not even the issue.
In my book, she's criminally liable. Sure, some level of incapacity, but that's not the way it should be treated, especially in cases of temporary incapacity. The onus should be on the defense, at least with these types of crimes.
BUT
If she is held fully liable, it makes it harder to go after criminal and/or civil liability elsewhere, i.e. doctors, etc. And in this case, there seems to be plenty to go around. My guess is that a lot of what was driving this case was a desire to backdoor attack docs and pharma, which does need to be done, but not through this mechanism. Those kids deserve justice.