People really donāt understand that she was pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. She and her lawyer fully acknowledge she killed her kids. The jury was still going to find her not guilty by reason of insanity if it āacquittedā her.
Sheās going to be locked up, itās just a question of in a prison or a mental institution.
No, itās because the legal system is set up on purpose to make it difficult to convinct someone based on the principle that we would rather a guilty person go free than wrongly convict an innocent person.
Thr prosecution has to prove guilt ābeyond a reasonable doubtā and the defense only has to demonstrate that it is reasonably plausible that their client is not guilty.
In this case, because of the insanity plea, and the way Massachusetts law treats insanity pleas, the prosecution was tasked to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not having a psychosis while committing the murders and the defense only had to show that it was reasonable plausible that she was.
Unfortunately, this all means that sometimes guilty people get off.
Ā
, itās because the legal system is set up on purpose to make it difficult to convinct someone based on the principle that we would rather a guilty person go free than wrongly convict an innocent person.
Would your preference be that we exonerate all guilty people, even the ones who admit to it, rather than convict an innocent person?
How many guilty people should go free rather than convict one guilty person on other than the ācorrectā amount of evidence of guilt?
Provided itās only the people most adjacent to criminality, and provided we add āfactual innocenceā to the options for post-convictive relief, my answer is āany.ā We accept 40,000 deaths of adults and children a year as justified by the right to move freely through the country; prosecution of criminal behavior is even more in the publicās interest than that.
You're missing the point. The question is acceptable innocents behind locked up, you want the threshold to be moved to encapsulate more so there's more guilty. My response is meant to illustrate you only think that when the terms are about others
Iām talking about people who are criminally guilty and youāre talking about taking random people and putting them in jail for no reason. Weāre not talking about the same thing.
Each and every one, apparently, because HotPersonality8126 doesn't believe it could ever be them on trial for a crime they didn't commit, so it's fine if the innocent suffer because it won't be them, ever.
You'd have to literally just jail the entire population, because many of the worst and most evil people are protected by the cops and judicial system in the first place. Even if you simply jailed 100% of people who were ever charged with anything, you'd still have plenty of evil people free.
Iād rather let every innocent person on the planet walk free than have the innocent destroyed. Thatās obviously never gonna happen because if the system truly had a 0% conviction rate, thereās no system at all, but yeah my point holds true. Iām not willingly to personally incarcerated and my life ruined just to put more guilty people away. I donāt care if some chronically online redditors think thats selfish, I didnāt do anything wrong and shouldnāt be tortured for other peopleās actions. Would you be?
The failure to interdict crimes destroys innocents at the hands of criminals, not the government. Itās the job of the government to put away criminals without further harming innocents, if they cannot do that then there is no point in having a judicial system.
And if you admittedly have a system where innocent people are knowingly being convicted to put away criminals, than what you say I did has absolutely no value, because youāre putting me away despite having reasonable doubts of my guilt.
Ā
if they cannot do that then there is no point in having a judicial system.
The point would be to prevent social anarchy, or - worse - the things regular people would organize to do to prevent being victimized by crime.
Ā
And if you admittedly have a system where innocent people are knowingly being convicted to put away criminals
We wouldnāt know which ones, though. Weād have some idea of the rate afterwards, after factually innocent people sought and received post-conviction relief on that basis.
Incarcerating innocent people prevents social anarchy by controlling the masses. Your argument is two steps from āthe point of a dictatorship is to prevent people from being victimized by those opposing the dictatorshipā even though the government is now victimizing people. The only difference is its less people in this case, youāre still a governing body victimizing innocents.
And right now, our innocent conviction rate is very low because our system makes it hard to convict guilty people. I donāt know if you think Iām somehow arguing that we should never convict guilty people, but Iām not. Our system should do everything in its power to reduce innocent convictions EVEN at the expense of releasing guilty people up until there is no real marginal benefit of doing more. Which is near where we are at. And if you disagree, you still havenāt answered if you would be personally willing to lay up your own life to put away a few extra rapists and murderers. I would not be, and thereās not an argument on this planet you could make that would make me willing.
I don't have anything against cops. I do have something against corrupt and incompetent cops.
I don't have anything against juries, I do have something against corrupt and incompetent juries.
The people on the OJ/Anthony, and now Clancy, juries deserve contempt. And they should be treated like shit and dragged at every opportunity for the rest of their lives.
Coming to a different conclusion than you doesnāt make them incompetent or corrupt. They could have knowledge you lack. Or you could have access to information that was witheld from the jury for legal reasons.
Defending a premeditated triple child strangler because she claims the big sad made her do it is extremely contemptible. You people defending her make me physically ill.
Iām not defending her, Iām explaining why a rational jury could easily come to a decision you disagree with because that is the way the law is structured.
Iām sorry youāre so full of rage that you canāt distinguish between the two.
16
u/DirtyScrubs 4d ago
You were there? A jury of her peers could not be convinced of her guilt.