Premeditated but Psychotic?

"Lindsay Clancy sent her husband out for takeout, mapping how long the errand would take. Prosecutors say this proves she planned to kill her three children. Her defense says she was in the grip of postpartum psychosis. Her trial is scheduled to begin in July 2026, and the question at its center is one the courts have grappled with before: Can someone who plans a killing still be legally insane?"

"Andrea Yates drowned her five children on June 20, 2001. Her actions were purposeful and methodical. She waited for her husband to leave for work. She filled the bathtub. She brought each child to the water, one by one, starting with the youngest. She laid their bodies on the bed and covered them with a sheet. Then she called 911."

"How? Because Yates believed her children were spiritually damaged and would burn in hell. By killing them before they reached the age of accountability, she believed she was saving their souls. Her planning, i.e., waiting for her husband to leave, preventing the family dog from interfering, was meticulous. But every element of that planning served her delusional mission. The method was rational. The premise was psychotic."

Lindsay Clancy allegedly timed an errand to allow her to kill her three children; prosecutors cite planning as proof of intent. Her defense asserts postpartum psychosis impaired her appreciation of wrongdoing. Legal precedent such as Andrea Yates shows methodical planning can coexist with delusional motives that render an act insane. A person can recognize illegality yet lack moral understanding because of psychosis. Forensic evaluators search for a causal link between mental illness and the act, examining whether symptoms produced the behavior rather than mere evidence of intent. Courts must weigh whether the motivation was psychotic rather than merely rational planning.

Read at Psychology Today