That separation can be particularly difficult in cases involving children.
The Clancy case forces observers to confront two realities simultaneously: the deaths of three young children were an unimaginable tragedy, and severe psychiatric illness can profoundly alter a person's perception and behavior.
Recognizing the second reality does not diminish the first.
Nor does acknowledging the suffering associated with mental illness require society to ignore the needs of victims and their families.
The difficult question is how the law should respond when those two realities collide.
A Broader Conversation About Maternal Mental Health
One of the most important consequences of the trial may extend beyond the courtroom.
The case has drawn attention to postpartum psychosis and the broader challenges surrounding maternal mental health.
Postpartum psychiatric conditions can be difficult to identify, particularly when symptoms are initially subtle or when new parents are reluctant to disclose frightening thoughts or unusual experiences.
The public conversation surrounding Clancy has therefore prompted renewed discussion about whether people experiencing serious postpartum mental-health symptoms receive adequate screening, treatment and follow-up care.
That conversation must be handled carefully.
It is important not to imply that postpartum psychosis generally leads to violence. Such an association could increase fear and stigma around people who experience postpartum mental-health conditions.
At the same time, severe psychiatric symptoms should never be dismissed.
The appropriate response to signs of psychosis is urgent professional evaluation and treatment.
The Clancy case illustrates the consequences of what can happen when a severe psychiatric crisis intersects with a vulnerable period in a person's life, although the specific facts of her case cannot be generalized to everyone experiencing postpartum mental-health difficulties.
A Legal System Caught Between Punishment and Treatment
Another question raised by the case is what society is trying to accomplish when a defendant is found to have been legally insane.
The public often associates a finding of insanity with freedom from consequences.
That is not necessarily what happens.
A person found not criminally responsible because of severe mental illness can still face confinement and compulsory psychiatric treatment, depending on the applicable legal framework and circumstances.
The underlying philosophy is different from ordinary punishment.
Instead of focusing exclusively on retribution, the system may prioritize public safety, psychiatric treatment and the management of ongoing risk.
That distinction is particularly relevant to cases involving severe mental illness.
It also explains why arguments about insanity should not be reduced to the claim that a defendant is simply "getting away with" a crime.
The legal consequences of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity can be substantial, even though they differ from a conventional prison sentence.
The Victims Remain at the Center
Whatever happens next, the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan remain the central human tragedy behind the legal proceedings.
The years of litigation, expert testimony and public debate cannot change what happened to the three children.