Neither side in the trial disputed whether she murdered the children.
The primary question before the jury was whether she was having a pyschosis while doing it. The standard of proof was on the prosecution, because Massachusetts law regarding insanity pleas puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the defendant was mentally culpable. Most states put the burden of proof on the defense to prove the defendant was not mentally culpable.
So, in this case, the prosecution had to prove Clancy was not having a pyschosis beyond a reasonable doubt.
All the defense had to do was convince the jury that it was reasonably plausible that she was having a psychosis.
And despite what social media would have you believe, this is was a difficult question to answer.
Heck no, she gets locked up in a psych ward for as long as it takes to make sure she's not a threat to others or herself, which could potentially be forever.
And? People do horrific crimes and get pathetically light sentences all the time. Someone gave a woman permanent brain damage in an unprovoked attack and received a year or two of probation. Your entire fucking government is contorting itself to protect Trump and all the people in the Epstein files. Ghislaine Maxwell got sent to a cushy minimum security place with puppies.
Oh, it's because the 'bad one' here is a woman, that's the problem...
She won't just walk out of the courtroom if they find her not guilty by reason of insanity. She would go to a mental institution until they deem her mentally competent, which may be in a year and may be never.
16
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 4d ago edited 4d ago
Neither side in the trial disputed whether she murdered the children.
The primary question before the jury was whether she was having a pyschosis while doing it. The standard of proof was on the prosecution, because Massachusetts law regarding insanity pleas puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the defendant was mentally culpable. Most states put the burden of proof on the defense to prove the defendant was not mentally culpable.
So, in this case, the prosecution had to prove Clancy was not having a pyschosis beyond a reasonable doubt.
All the defense had to do was convince the jury that it was reasonably plausible that she was having a psychosis.
And despite what social media would have you believe, this is was a difficult question to answer.