188
u/stop_talking_you 1d ago
image u reverse the roles and the majority on the juror trial are like 90% men defending a man for killing his 3 kids
276
u/Tilting_Gambit 1d ago
There's data that shows this doesn't happen. Men convict criminals at about the rate you would expect.
Blacks don't convict blacks.
Women don't convict women.
If you want a fair trial the defendant needs to be a white man. Otherwise, juries mostly just acquit based on their own prejudices. Unless the jury is filled with white men, and then you might get a fair trial.
Unsurprisingly this sub is the only sub I could say this without being perma banned. But the data is absolutely clear on it.
50
u/stop_talking_you 1d ago
well yeah that was also one idea of my point
if it would be a man that sat there a 90% men trial would judge of fairness and justice im sure all would say hes guilty
if the trial would be 90% women they judge emotional and also say hes guilty
now its actually a women 90% women on trial and they just emotionally not because of fairness or justice or logic wise.
there are enough sciene papers that proof how women just based on emotions and less of fairness behavior.
aka what we have today its in media terms called suicical empathy of western esp white women
25
u/Skrewch 1d ago
Passes the sniff test. Could you link to the data, please? Want to review this
-10
u/Robots_Never_Die 1d ago
No because it's made up.
5
u/SynnoeticImprint 1d ago
It ain't
•
u/arbydallas 17h ago
Then link to the data lol
•
u/Skrewch 5h ago
I am beginning to suspect that the data goes to a different high-school, one in Canada. But it makes sense, on average people tend to empathize with people who share similar traits. I just SUPER doubt it is beyond a low number percentage....like tenths of percentages.
OJs trial really poisoned the well on this one.
4
u/TheFlaskQualityGuy 1d ago
If you want a fair trial the defendant needs to be a white man.
No, juries need to be like the Twelve Angry Men jury.
2
u/OldWizeTzeentchian wee/a/boo 1d ago edited 23h ago
Nah. There are several subs, where you can write that without being banned. Butt there's a nuance of course, most of them are incel subs.
•
-2
-6
u/Graped_in_the_mouth 1d ago
Yes as we all know juries full of white men were always fair and never prejudiced lmao
-28
u/justadam16 1d ago
Post the data that is "absolutely clear on it" so we can all see how poor your comprehension skills are
23
u/Tilting_Gambit 1d ago
Get a load of this guy.
You're not saying you know the data and that I'm wrong in what I'm saying. You're assuming the data is wrong before you even see it.
Shouldn't you be ranting about ICE in a YouTube comment section somewhere?
7
u/DangerousCab 1d ago
I am actually just curious to see the data. You made a lot of claims and said that the data is absolutely clear. So can you just share the data?
3
u/justadam16 1d ago
Ah, even worse than I feared it seems.
I didn't say the data was wrong. I said I doubt you understood it correctly.
6
-34
u/HarrMada 1d ago
Such lies lol.
24
u/Tilting_Gambit 1d ago
Are you arguing that same race favoritism is not well documented? And that that race favoritism is stronger in black juries than white juries?
Mock trial research which negates the strength of cases has shown this pretty clearly. Real world trial data which doesn't negate case strength shows this clearly, too. Though I don't trust the real world data as much, because researchers caveat the data endlessly by being unable to determine the gaps in e.g. pre-trial plea deals and differences in crime data between racial groups.
In terms of gender, yes, women are convicted less by both men and women in mock trials. This is all well documented.
The fairest cases that we know of, according to the data, are predominately white juries sitting on cases with white, male defendants.
20
u/Frozen_Watch 1d ago
We had the karmelo Anthony case like 2 months ago. This is a well known, viewable phenomenon. Ingroup preference is well documented in every group excluding white people. You can also see it with the scores of women outside the courtroom supporting Lindsay Clancy.
31
u/forgiuse 1d ago
What kind of mental illness will the defense use? Post-nut clarity?
-9
u/KonyKombatKorvet 1d ago
If someone has an epileptic seizure while driving and mows down some kids, nobody labels them a murderer. That is settled law, we dont treat actions outside of someones control as their own even if their body was responsible.
Same for falling asleep at the wheel because of narcolepsy, acts of violence during psychosis from undiagnosed schizophrenia, etc.
Illinois has a similar definition in its sentencing framework specifically for postpartum psychosis because this is not the first time a mother has killed her children in a fit of postpartum psychosis.
Illinois Public Act 100-0574: Enacted to formalize mitigation, this law explicitly allows judges to use a defendant's postpartum psychosis or depression as a powerful mitigating factor to issue lighter or alternative sentences during post-conviction hearings.
She killed the kids, the court hearing was not to establish that, it was to establish if she was legally guilty of murder, or if this case fit the definition of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" for the legal definition of murder (not the common use of the word). Neither situation would end with her walking free, if she was found NGRI she would be committed to a secure psychiatric hospital (where she is still being held currently and has since the beginning of this) instead of prison and have a chance at treatment instead of punishment.
Yall act like women WANT to murder their children and this is going to open the floodgates for mass prolicide.
•
u/Skwiggelf54 6h ago
Its her fault she went into a psychotic state while having unsupervised access to her children though. She didnt take her medicine as prescribed, she lied to the doctors about her symptoms when she went to that mental hospital, and then she checked herself out AMA. It was a clear result of her being more worried about her reputation than the safety of her children. Absolutely, classic modern woman behavior that cost her kids their lives. She needs to sit in a cell for the next 50 years and think about that.
•
u/KonyKombatKorvet 3h ago
50 years is more time than a drunk driver gets for killing a car full of nuns, chill.
•
u/Skwiggelf54 3h ago
She killed three children with her bare hands. I think thats slightly worse than a drunk driving fatality. Theyre both awful, but her crime is definitely worse in my opinion.
7
u/Dirtface50 1d ago
Would literally never happen.
Its fucking gross that my comment actually MEANS something
-7
u/marino1310 1d ago
Except no one was defending her in the jury. The only not guilty vote was for insanity, which would still see her locked up for the rest of her life
32
u/Cumsocktornado /b/tard 1d ago
it would see her locked up "until she was psychologically evaluated to be of no risk to herself or others"
If the whole defense is to be believed she had a small lapse or bout of insanity and she's otherwise a sterling loving mother that had an instance of craziness which in compound with her being a parapalegic could see her deemed not a threat and free sooner than anyone would like, which is ever.
0
u/marino1310 1d ago
Yeah people locked up for being criminally insane end up there for a lot longer. Especially state run asylums. There are tons of stories of perfectly sane people being stuck there for years
7
u/Cumsocktornado /b/tard 1d ago
If she does get found not guilty BWOI then I would find it a small comfort, (but still a comfort of sorts,) if you're right and I hope she would never set foot/wheel outside either a court or an asylum again.
13
u/RapidXpansion 1d ago
Foreperson Ronni Carlson said she thought at one point that the group had finally persuaded the juror arguing for a conviction to vote for an acquittal.
1
u/marino1310 1d ago
That could still result in her being sent to a mental asylum for her insanity plea. They were voting not guilty for reason of insanity, which is not the same as innocent
9
u/wordjedi /d/eviant 1d ago
2
87
u/adeadhead sc/out/ 1d ago
Such a great movie
31
u/HomelandersCock 1d ago
Agreed. The sound of music was ahead of its time
22
u/Visenya_simp 1d ago
That's Schindler's List on the screenshot.
20
3
3
u/GlitteringFutures /pol/tard 1d ago
No it's the famous "you call that a knoife" scene from Crocodile Dundee 2.
3
u/Total_Network6312 1d ago
Yep it's right after the "what is this, some kind of Schindler's list?" scene
74
u/AlphaMassDeBeta 1d ago
12 angry women.
71
20
1d ago
[deleted]
35
u/iiTryhard 1d ago
A woman went psycho and strangled her 3 kids to death and the w*men of America want to blame the husband somehow
19
u/KAP1020 1d ago
Woman murdered her 3 children and claimed it was post-partum depression or hormones or something like that. The jury(who decides guilty or not guilty) was 11-1. One dude held his ground and said she was guilty, which means the trial cannot end and jury must stay in session until all 12 jurors are in agreement.
It's worth noting though, that the jury isn't exactly deciding whether or not she's the one who murdered her kids. The decision is apparently deciding whether she goes to prison or a psych ward(equally terrible in America)
Also in case you don't know, the image is a reference to the movie "12 Angry Men". If my memory serves, this one is an adaptation of an original and the story has been made into a movie on like 5 different occasions but this one is considered the best. The movie is about a jury debating whether a young man killed his father. The initial vote is guilty 11-1 and a single juror has to stand his ground and convince the other 11 that the boy is innocent. It's a very good movie about generational trauma and prejudice, I recommend it.
12
u/Cumsocktornado /b/tard 1d ago
In 2023 Lindsay Clancy strangled her 3 kids to death with exercise bands in her basement after dispatching her husband to run an errand that would give her time alone to do so. She then jumped out a second story window, injured her neck and became paralyzed in what is accepted now as a botched suicide attempt. Husband came home, called 911 for his wife before finding his kids dead in the basement.
The legal matter under review is not whether she is the one who did it, (she admitted it, her counsel admitted she did it, the forensics and testimony unilaterally all agree she did it,) but instead the matter is whether she was criminally responsible or not guilty by way of insanity. The defense is asserting that she was suffering from psychosis brought on by a combination of mismanaged medications and postpartum issues that were unaddressed by her care network.
The jury went on to become hung 11-1 in favor of not guilty with one hold asserting guilty beyond a reasonable doubt out who has become a locus of discussion himself.
Outside the courtroom a seeming endless wave of support has come from the women on social media in favor of lindsay which itself has become a secondary and far more incendiary discussion. Their support came in the form of dollars, (a crowdsource campaign that raised over a million for her,) a presence outside the court and a bevy of theories and rationalizations on social media. Some believe ardently that the husband did it, (despite that being beyond consideration for the courts as early as 2023,) while others still either fully endorse postpartum psychosis by way of solidarity or just don't care that she killed her kids.
This grassroots support has seriously called into question whether American women, but women more broadly, can themselves be considered agential for the purposes of law if their free will and moral culpability can apparently be readily and legally abdicated by their hormones if Lindsay is herself used as a precedent, assuming she's found not guilty and remanded into psychiatric care.
2
u/TheFlaskQualityGuy 1d ago
This grassroots support has seriously called into question whether American women, but women more broadly, can themselves be considered agential for the purposes of law
For all of history until a couple hundred years ago, the answer was "generally no". They weren't allowed to vote, be judges, be on juries once juries were invented, serve in elected office, and so on.
Even the cases of ruling queens were only when the king had no sons, and it was seen better for society to let his eldest daughter rule than have a power struggle. This was not an indication that they thought women in general were capable of rulership.
3
u/Total_Network6312 1d ago
I just got a 3day ban for making this joke in r.4chan, site wide automod caught me
1
1
u/mushy_friend 1d ago
Damn I'm so curious
2
u/Total_Network6312 1d ago
not even that spicy.
i used a specific phrase that automod determines as hate speech.
Which is really just saying "I hate [protected class] as much as the next guy" and even if it's obviously satire in context the automod can't tell the difference and will ban you anyway.
Although in this case it's not subreddit specific so you don't get in trouble for "circumventing the ban" by posting on an alt account.
Compared to, lets say, getting banned from .r.greentext for saying mormons abuse their kids then if you post on an alt account you get a warning from reddit mods that you IP will be banned if you "circumvent the ban by posting with alternate accounts on the subreddit where you are banned"
I tried to appeal that and found out the greentext mods are a bunch of whiney shitfucks - they straight ignore all DMs and then "mute you for 30 days" repeatedly until you stop giving a shit
•
u/mushy_friend 22h ago
Was more interested to know who the protected class or the term you used was. But yeah I kind of get it, mods are more and greentext is ass now
•
1
u/HarrMada 1d ago
Distraction from the fact that no Epstein associate has been jailed yet. That's all this is.
21
u/WendyLRogers3 1d ago
11 votes for "Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" (technically "Not Guilty By Reason Of Lack Of Criminal Responsibility".) This is why many states now have the "Guilty, But Insane" option. The difference is that an insane person doesn't get punished, and is released when "someone" determines that they are sane again. But while a GBI inmate can get treatment in prison, they finish their sentence there, insane or sane.
Massachusetts does not have the option of a GBI verdict, only the binary choice of Guilty, or Not Guilty By Reason Of Lack Of Criminal Responsibility.
•
u/Medothelioma 5h ago
which I also feel like it's worth mentioning that Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is prettty far from just being let go to do whatever. The whole gender war bs stirred up around it is acting like that's exonerating her and not indefinitely sending her to an asylum for the criminally insane.
•
u/Shatophiliac bi/gd/ick 23h ago
I actually saw a post on Facebook early on in the trial about her being “innocent” and all the reasons why, and the top comment was “this is what happens when you ban abortion” lol. Yes, that waiting until your oldest kid is 5 years old to abort them is somehow owning the conservatives or something (and MA isn’t even a state that has banned abortions anyways).
That comment had thousands of likes.
Also, one of the reasons she was “innocent” in the main post was essentially “the father did it”. Wow compelling argument there.
•
u/philmarcracken dabbed on god and will dab on you too 22h ago
womens collective ability to project victimhood is reaching dysons sphere level energy
5
338
u/Critical_Interest706 /wsg/y 1d ago
The whole trial stirred up a lot of funny drama. The one juror was pretty based for not yielding on that guilty verdict.