Jurors return in Lindsay Clancy trial after judge asks them to break deadlock

Quilty?

  • yes

    Votes: 68 94.4%

  • no

    Votes: 4 5.6%
  • Total voters
    72
My opinion is she is guilty by reason iof insanity, She needs to be in a looney bin for the rest of her life.
Wouldn't she be in a prison for disabled people anyway?
Or how does it work? Like Oscar?
 
Cray said:
Yup, she would need to defraud a whole bunch of people before she can qualify for a Trump pardon.
Click to expand...
Also bit of a problem that Trump cannot give a pardon for a crime prosecuted by the state's legal system. The state governor could do it. And honestly considering Massachusetts already made abortion until birth legal, extending that by a mere 6 years after birth for the reason of being sad is perfectly within what Democrats will allow.
 
Cray said:
Okay fair enough, I did watch it, and he was quite balanced, the first time I have seen him actually make come across as measured and reasoned. Apologies.
Click to expand...

He did a podcast series, living by design, a few years back.
Life will happen, you will have to make choices, better to make them conscious choices.
That was very good info without the theatrics.
 
I don't get this at all. What business do Jurors have determining if a person was sane or not. In normal countries the state will assign a professional psychologist ahead of time to determine if the person is fit to stand trial if insanity is a possibility. The PROFESSIONAL determines if you were in your right mind. Once they say yes, it is not for the Jury to overrule that. Its for the jury to determine if they where guilty or not, and the judge to decide the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. So why the Jury is even allowed to say she is not guilty when she admitted it is kind of insane for me. It has nothing to do with them. That should have been the professional psychologists job, not theirs. How would they know in the first place. Are they trained to diagnose that? American justice has become a joke in that this even went that far. The judge should have had the power to order the jury to disregard mental wellbeing in the formulation of their verdict as that should have already determined before hand. Any Jury member ignoring that should be held in contempt, fined, and booted off the jury.
 
Cius said:
I don't get this at all. What business do Jurors have determining if a person was sane or not. In normal countries the state will assign a professional psychologist ahead of time to determine if the person is fit to stand trial if insanity is a possibility. The PROFESSIONAL determines if you were in your right mind. Once they say yes, it is not for the Jury to overrule that. Its for the jury to determine if they where guilty or not, and the judge to decide the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. So why the Jury is even allowed to say she is not guilty when she admitted it is kind of insane for me. It has nothing to do with them. That should have been the professional psychologists job, not theirs. How would they know in the first place. Are they trained to diagnose that? American justice has become a joke in that this even went that far. The judge should have had the power to order the jury to disregard mental wellbeing in the formulation of their verdict as that should have already determined before hand. Any Jury member ignoring that should be held in contempt, fined, and booted off the jury.
Click to expand...
Jurors got to hear evidence from both sides as to her claimed insanity. That includes expert witnesses.

They have the task of figuring out which side to believe.
 
konfab said:
Jurors got to hear evidence from both sides as to her claimed insanity. That includes expert witnesses.

They have the task of figuring out which side to believe.
Click to expand...
This case does show the problems with the jury system. It is not reliable.

Insanity/crazy is kinda the wrong word. It is more like did she know what she was doing at that moment. And obviously yes because she meticulously planned and executed it over a significant amount of time.

Insanity/crazy/mental illness is so watered down that it means nothing. Feeling a bit sad when you already have everything and are just bored is not an excuse to murder children.
 
Cius said:
I don't get this at all. What business do Jurors have determining if a person was sane or not. In normal countries the state will assign a professional psychologist ahead of time to determine if the person is fit to stand trial if insanity is a possibility. The PROFESSIONAL determines if you were in your right mind. Once they say yes, it is not for the Jury to overrule that. Its for the jury to determine if they where guilty or not, and the judge to decide the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. So why the Jury is even allowed to say she is not guilty when she admitted it is kind of insane for me. It has nothing to do with them. That should have been the professional psychologists job, not theirs. How would they know in the first place. Are they trained to diagnose that? American justice has become a joke in that this even went that far. The judge should have had the power to order the jury to disregard mental wellbeing in the formulation of their verdict as that should have already determined before hand. Any Jury member ignoring that should be held in contempt, fined, and booted off the jury.
Click to expand...
Your rights are to be judged by a jury of your peers. it protects you from the goverment.

A trial by a jury of one's peers is a constitutional safeguard designed to protect individuals from government overreach and ensure impartial justice by having cases decided by ordinary citizens from the community.

In a legal setting, a jury has the final say because a psychological diagnosis is a medical opinion, not a legal conclusion. While psychologists provide expert testimony to help explain human behavior and mental health, the jury's job is to decide how that diagnosis applies to the law.
 
Cray said:
Okay fair enough, I did watch it, and he was quite balanced, the first time I have seen him actually make come across as measured and reasoned. Apologies.
Click to expand...
You don't have to apologize, dude. Just double down by some distractions. You need to learn vrot ways. /s
 
Cius said:
I don't get this at all. What business do Jurors have determining if a person was sane or not. In normal countries the state will assign a professional psychologist ahead of time to determine if the person is fit to stand trial if insanity is a possibility. The PROFESSIONAL determines if you were in your right mind. Once they say yes, it is not for the Jury to overrule that. Its for the jury to determine if they where guilty or not, and the judge to decide the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. So why the Jury is even allowed to say she is not guilty when she admitted it is kind of insane for me. It has nothing to do with them. That should have been the professional psychologists job, not theirs. How would they know in the first place. Are they trained to diagnose that? American justice has become a joke in that this even went that far. The judge should have had the power to order the jury to disregard mental wellbeing in the formulation of their verdict as that should have already determined before hand. Any Jury member ignoring that should be held in contempt, fined, and booted off the jury.
Click to expand...

Think you’re a bit confused….

Fit to stand trial: The judge is assisted by psychologists and will decide this.

Legal insanity: If the person was legally responsible when the crime occurred. Experts can give evidence, but the jury applies the legal test and decides.

The psychologist’s opinion isn’t binding, and the judge can’t order a jury to return a guilty verdict.
 
So this is very interesting to me.
I know people has very stong feelings about this. But the legal system facinates me, I know we can't trust ChatGPT but she has been helpfull. Everyone has the right to a fair trail and good representation. So the defence did their job. Brilliantly, lucky for them where the crime was comitted

In Massachusetts, the term "insanity" is not technically used in the courtroom. Instead, the legal framework is known as lack of criminal responsibility. [1]
The state's framework is established by a 1967 landmark case, Commonwealth v. McHoul, which adopted the McHoul standard (a version of the Model Penal Code test). Compared to the rest of the United States, Massachusetts has one of the broadest and most defense-friendly insanity standards in the country
Click to expand...

What truly sets Massachusetts apart from the federal system and most states is who carries the burden of proof. [1, 2]
  • In the vast majority of U.S. states, the defense must prove the defendant was insane.
  • In Massachusetts, once the defense introduces a credible claim of insanity, the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was legally sane. [1, 2, 3]
Click to expand...
( its a good escape from the crap in our country, a bit detached. Judge me lol )
 
G'Wobblez said:
So this is very interesting to me.
I know people has very stong feelings about this. But the legal system facinates me, I know we can't trust ChatGPT but she has been helpfull. Everyone has the right to a fair trail and good representation. So the defence did their job. Brilliantly, lucky for them where the crime was comitted




( its a good escape from the crap in our country, a bit detached. Judge me lol )
Click to expand...
People are making way too big of a deal about this. The facts of the case were more than sufficient to conclusively proof she knew what she was doing.

I also don't agree the defense did a good job. The defense presented very emotion arguments and the old women fell for it because they are stupid. If you think playing on the emotions of the jury is good, fine I don't find it convincing.

The defense: She was a great mother. Yes up until she killed her children. Not great.
She gave her kids a great childhood: actually no. She cut their time short.
Just think of the kids as vases. Dehumanise them and it's not that bad.

And the old woman too high in empathy cannot think straight they just felt too sorry for the lady in a wheelchair to punish her more.
 
rietrot said:
People are making way too big of a deal about this. The facts of the case were more than sufficient to conclusively proof she knew what she was doing.

I also don't agree the defense did a good job. The defense presented very emotion arguments and the old women fell for it because they are stupid. If you think playing on the emotions of the jury is good, fine I don't find it convincing.

The defense: She was a great mother. Yes up until she killed her children. Not great.
She gave her kids a great childhood: actually no. She cut their time short.
Just think of the kids as vases. Dehumanise them and it's not that bad.

And the old woman too high in empathy cannot think straight they just felt too sorry for the lady in a wheelchair to punish her more.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, she was for a very long time and still is a very mentaly unhealthy person.

That is exactly why the defence did a great job. The procecution failed by not doing their jobs.
 
There are two components required for a guilty verdict in most legal systems:

An illegal act must have been committed (Actus Reus).

The accused must have been of guilty mind (Mens Rea).

The insanity plea rests on the latter. If the court has doubt that the accused knew what they were doing was wrong, due to mental incapacity/insanity, it is impossible to convict.
 
G'Wobblez said:
I disagree with you, she was for a very long time and still is a very mentaly unhealthy person.

That is exactly why the defence did a great job. The procecution failed by not doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
Criminal Insanity is not the same as being mentally unhealthy/ actually having real depression(which makes people suicidal), or bipolar or whatever. Post-partum depression is just depression.

The fact that she functioned as a "very mentally unhealthy person" for a long time make her more guilty not less.

Criminal Insanity basically requires that you lose control of your mind and that you are not aware of what you are doing.
Kinda not planning the murder.

Criminal Insanity is a freak out not a meticulously planned and executed event.

Just because you might feel suicidal doesn't mean you can take your kids with you. That is murder.
 
Three kids still dead and everyone is reeing about the killer bitch from hell

Then again I must go to my tried and tested. Her kids. Her choice

Any mother should have the right to off her kids until they turn 21. Then they can off her
 
G'Wobblez said:
My opinion is she is guilty by reason iof insanity, She needs to be in a looney bin for the rest of her life.
Wouldn't she be in a prison for disabled people anyway?
Or how does it work? Like Oscar?
Click to expand...
Technically, she should have been locked up in the looney bin before she committed the crime. Unfortunatly, prescribing and popping another pill is easier for the system than admittance :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X