Texas Rep. Brandon Gill posted a clip on X after a Massachusetts jury deadlocked in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of killing her three children in Duxbury in 2023. In the video, according to the post, Gill said courts should “stop medicalizing evil” and that “justice would demand the death penalty.” Online users reacted to the remarks, with many backing his call for accountability and others arguing the case turns on severe mental illness.
The clip was posted on X by Texas Rep. Brandon Gill (@realBrandonGill), who shared a segment from Fox News’ The Will Cain Show. The video shows Gill in the studio as a lower-third reads “Judge Declares Mistrial in Lindsay Clancy Case,” with courtroom footage from Plymouth, Massachusetts, appearing beside him.
In the clip, Gill says he has “an enormous amount of sympathy for those three little innocent kids who are slaughtered” and “not an ounce of sympathy for Lindsay Clancy.” He adds, “You don’t get licensed to murder your children or anybody else just because you have mental health problems,” and that “we’ve gotten in a habit of medicalizing evil.”
Gill’s caption repeats that argument: “We have to stop medicalizing evil,” that Clancy “brutally murdered three young kids,” and that “justice would demand the death penalty.” In the interview, he also says, “What happened here is a woman… who murdered three innocent children. Full stop,” and that, “whether she was hearing voices or not,” she “ought to be locked up and off of our streets for the rest of her life.”
The footage does not show the 2023 killings or the jury’s deliberations; it shows Gill’s comments after a judge declared a mistrial. Massachusetts does not have the death penalty, a point the clip itself does not address.
How Viewers Are Responding to Gill’s Remarks
Some users agreed with Gill’s framing. One wrote, “Murder is murder. Period.” Another said, “Mental health issues do not give you licence to murder your kids!” A third asked, “If Clancy wasn’t sane enough to know that she was doing wrong, why did she try and hide it?”
Others focused on the hung jury and on what they said the case should not set as a standard. One commenter wrote, “My concern is the precedent this creates: if mental illness becomes the go-to explanation whenever someone deliberately takes the lives of their children or spouse, accountability can quickly become an afterthought.”
Another said the “most shameful thing to come out of the trial is that only one juror stood for the moral, ethical and legal response.”
A smaller group pushed back. One user said the jury was reported as “11 to 1 in favor of acquittal” and asked Gill when he “decide[d] you were against being judged by a jury of your peers.”
Another wrote, “It’s not that simple,” arguing Clancy “should be punished for what she did” but that “the treatment and medication she received from hospitals and healthcare providers should also be mentioned.”
The remarks now sit inside a larger argument over how courts should treat mental-health claims in cases involving the deaths of children. Whether prosecutors seek a retrial, that debate is likely to continue as the Clancy case moves toward its next hearing.
