Mental Illness is not a Free Pass to do Evil

Just because someone is mentally ill, it does not make them free of consequences of their evil actions.

Just this year (2026), disturbing cases where mental illness (or so they claimed) has been brought up as an explanation for horrific crimes became viral and known to the majority of people. Two cases that particularly caught my attention are Lindsay Clancy, who killed her three children, and the more recent case of Corie Walsh, who is accused of killing her two-year-old son. Both cases involve mothers whose mental states have become an important part of the discussion surrounding what happened.

Short Summarry of the Cases

Lindsay Clancy Case

In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy was accused of killing her three young children in Massachusetts before attempting to take her own life. Her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible for her actions. Prosecutors, however, argued that she understood what she was doing and knew that it was wrong. Her trial took place in 2026.

The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven jurors reportedly favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, while one juror disagreed, resulting in a mistrial on September 4, 2026. Her defense has since asked the judge to find her not guilty, while prosecutors have not yet decided whether to retry the case.

Corie Walsh Case

Then, just days after the Clancy trial ended in a mistrial, another disturbing case emerged. Corie Walsh, a 40 years old mother, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder after her two-year-old son, Barrett, was found dead in the family's home on September 1, 2026. Her defense attorney has said that Walsh was suffering from a psychotic episode at the time and was severely mentally ill.

What makes the case even more disturbing is that prosecutors say Walsh had become deeply invested in the Lindsay Clancy trial and had been discussing it with friends shortly before her son was found dead. At the time of writing this, Walsh has been accused, not convicted. Her case is still ongoing.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

I believe there is a line that should not be crossed when we talk about mental illness and criminal actions. On one hand, I do believe that If someone is actually suffering from mental illness, then they should receive treatment. But the crime they committed should not lessen just because of their mental state even if mental illness is confirmed to be present.

Take a look with the cases above for example, killing another person, especially your own child, is not something that should simply be brushed aside by saying, "They were mentally ill."

There should be legal consequences from these types of actions regardless of the fact they were sane or not when having done the deed. Justice

1. Mental Illness Does Not Erase Right and Wrong

One of the problems I have with how these cases are sometimes discussed is that mental illness can become the entire focus of the conversation.

Someone commits an extremely violent act, and suddenly the discussion becomes about their diagnosis, their medications, their history, or what was going through their mind.

Those things are be important. But we should not forget what actually happened. If someone kills a child, a mental illness diagnosis does not bring that child back. It does not erase the suffering of the victim or their family. And it does not magically turn a horrific act into something acceptable.

Even if the person genuinely could not think normally at the time, the act itself was still inhumane and against anything that is holy.

2. What About Criminal Responsibility for the Mentally Ill?

Mental Illness is too broad of a term because it includes many kinds of illness of the mind, for example, if simply having depression, psychosis, a personality disorder, or another mental illness automatically meant that someone deserved a lighter sentence for a violent crime, then mental illness could become a blanket excuse for criminal behavior.

The important question to ask oneself should be whether the illness actually prevented the person from understanding what they were doing and whether it was wrong.

There is a major difference between "This person has a mental illness" and "This person's mental illness made them incapable of understanding right from wrong." These two should not be treated as the same thing.

3. The Victims Still Matter

In cases like Lindsay Clancy's and Corie Walsh's, the victims (their children), should be the focus, they are after all the ones that has been wronged. Their lives should matter just as much as the mental state of the person accused of killing them. Having compassion for someone suffering from mental illness should not require us to have less compassion for their victims.

CONCLUSION

Mental illness is real and people suffering from it should receive proper treatment and compassion.
Having a mental illness does not automatically excuse a crime or mean the person deserves a lighter punishment.
The important question is whether the illness actually prevented the person from understanding what they were doing and whether it was wrong.
Justice and compassion can exist at the same time. We can acknowledge someone's mental illness while still holding them accountable for their actions.