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
ShaunSA said:
Oh you're one of those men who think women shouldn't have control of their own bodies
Click to expand...
F**king, what?!

ShaunSA said:
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
Click to expand...
Her kids, NOT HER BODY

You need help
 
TheMightyQuin said:
The re-trial should hopefully lead to a 1st degree murder conviction.
Click to expand...
Retrial is going to be difficult or delayed for years to get it out of the public eye.
If the Plymouth County District Attorney's office determines that they cannot or will not retrial Lindsay Clancy following the recent mistrial, the case will resolve through one of three paths: a negotiated plea deal, a lesser bench trial, or a full dismissal of the charges. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Because there was no verdict, the original first-degree murder charges remain active, and she will continue to be held in state custody at a psychiatric hospital until a legal resolution is reached. [1, 2, 3]
Click to expand...
 
rietrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
that is exactly what the procecution showed?
We will disagree about this but we still agree about the outcome thought.
I don't think she should be allowed to be in society, she killed 3 children.
 
rietrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

There is a clear distinction between being COMPLETELY NUTS and not knowing the difference between right or wrong....

OR going completely nuts IN THE MOMENT.

Both are accepted for a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity".

It depends on the jurisdiction.

There are three foundational legal standards:

  • The "Right from Wrong Test"
  • The Irresistible Impulse Test
  • The Model Penal Code Standard
 
G'Wobblez said:
that is exactly what the procecution showed?
We will disagree about this but we still agree about the outcome thought.
I don't think she should be allowed to be in society, she killed 3 children.
Click to expand...

The undisputed facts of the case which the prosecution and defense agree on wasn't challenged and clearly showed she planned it.

Her defence was post partum psychosis. (A crazy moment where she wasn't aware of what she was doing.) which doesn't align with the facts of the case.
What real Post-partum psychosis looks like in extreme cases is the mother is paralyzed. The baby is crying but the mother is so overwhelmed she can't do anything she might also just be lying down crying.
In more severe cases the mother might lash out verbally, like yell shut up to her newborn.
In extreme cases the mother might lash out physically in a moment of madness.

Not meticulously plan to strangle all 3 her kids while sending her husband out to do chores and taking a phone call halfway through telling him everything is okay.
The facts of the case as presented in court is premeditated murder.
All the emotional arguments of the defence is BS.
 
ShaunSA said:
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
Click to expand...
Nah nah, why stop at 21.

Think we should also change "NeVeR HiT a WhAmEn" and include "NeVeR cOnViCt a WhAmEn".

Remember - If all of the kings had their queens on the throne. We would pop champagne and raise a toast
 
TheMightyQuin said:
Not quite.

There is a clear distinction between being COMPLETELY NUTS and not knowing the difference between right or wrong....

OR going completely nuts IN THE MOMENT.

Both are accepted for a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity".

It depends on the jurisdiction.

There are three foundational legal standards:

  • The "Right from Wrong Test"
  • The Irresistible Impulse Test
  • The Model Penal Code Standard
Click to expand...
The right from wrong test does test Mens Rea, but has nothing to do with insanity. Is is actually stupid to bring up because are you trying to argue anyone on earth except @ShaunSA believes murdering children is right? Even if you have a justification for it is is still wrong. You cannot even bring the charge down to culpable homicide using that. Reasonable person test says killing people is not allowed.

Yeah meticulous planning destroys irresistible impulse. You should know it is wrong and have time to remove the kids or yourself.
 
She murdered three people. Strangled them to death.
Planned it out. Didn't strike them in a manic episode, unintentionally causing their deaths.
Methodically executed each of the people. One by one.

Oh, the people are her own kids? never mind then.
She just needs our understanding and treatment.

Misplaced compassion and understanding for the worst people.
 
The mere act of planning doesn't preclude a finding of insanity. Many patently insane people have planned and executed criminal acts.

The law may be many things, but it is rational and cannot be emotional.
 
Okty said:
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 :(
Click to expand...
The idea that the system failed her is also wrong.

She had all the help in the world, she was shopping around for medication without informing the different doctors and then not even taking the medication regularly.

She was admitted for few days but checked herself out.

There's no evidence that the system failed her. As in she/her family tried to get help but couldn't afford it, it wasn't available or something.
The husband was too enabling and never told her no, but she is more of an expert than he is. Men should control their women better.
 
vigras rojara said:
The mere act of planning doesn't preclude a finding of insanity. Many patently insane people have planned and executed criminal acts.

The law may be many things, but it is rational and cannot be emotional.
Click to expand...
You are using insanity very loosely. We all agree she is crazy.

Psychosis is a disconnect from reality, the defence didn't even argue this properly. There's an older case were a women murdered her children because she believed they were literally demons or something. Yes if you believe your children are demons or evil fairies or whatever then you can theoretically plan the murder and be criminally insane.

But nobody claimed that's what happened here. My post are in context of this case.
 
rietrot said:
You are using insanity very loosely. We all agree she is crazy.

Psychosis is a disconnect from reality, the defence didn't even argue this properly. There's an older case were a women murdered her children because she believed they were literally demons or something. Yes if you believe your children are demons or evil fairies or whatever then you can theoretically plan the murder and be criminally insane.

But nobody claimed that's what happened here. My post are in context of this case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's for the Court to decide really. They are the ones hearing the direct evidence and with access to relevant precedent etc.

We can just speculate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X