
Lindsay Clancy’s insanity defense is the focus of this forensic psychiatry follow-up after the mistrial. We revisit the case through the lens of legal insanity, postpartum psychosis, malingering, criminal responsibility, and the difference between a legal conclusion and a moral judgment. We also discuss why psychosis cannot be reduced to a single reported voice, how forensic psychiatrists think about exaggeration versus malingering, questions around expert testimony and diagnosis, and the relationship between psychosis and violence. Finally, we look at medication nonadherence, culpability, how uncommon the insanity defense may be, and what questions arise when someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit psychofarm.substack.com
Podzilla Summary coming soon
Sign up to get notified when the full AI-powered summary is ready.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.

Trauma and PTSD: How the DSM Criteria Actually Help Us Understand What’s Going On

What Patients Should Know When Diagnosed With Depression

Autism Diagnosis Explained: DSM-5 Criteria, Autistic Traits & the Difficult Differential

How to Diagnose Bipolar Disorder with Dr. Phelps: Hypomania, Mixed States & the Clues DSM Misses
Free AI-powered recaps of Psychofarm Podcast and your other favorite podcasts, delivered to your inbox.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.