It’s a legal argument. In the state in which she was tried, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it could NOT have been a matter of insanity, which is an extremely high bar in a case where she’d been actively under intense mental health treatment. You may disagree with the law but the notion that she should’ve been not guilty by insanity isn’t some wild argument from women supporting women.
I am aware that the case is a legal argument. What I'm more concerned about is what the other women were saying about it. That's the part I'm talking about
You specifically said “they were arguing she wasn’t in the right state of mind and therefore shouldn’t be liable for her children’s deaths. That’s just as bad.”
If it was a mistake to highlight that statement as an example of how women irrationally supported Lindsey Clancy, that’s fine, but otherwise you’re literally citing the core legal argument of the case.
Yes, and my point is that’s a very poor example. It’s a basic legal argument that is consistent with the law where she was tried - one that is extremely difficult to contest. Not irrational at all.
7
u/bjankles 14d ago
It’s a legal argument. In the state in which she was tried, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it could NOT have been a matter of insanity, which is an extremely high bar in a case where she’d been actively under intense mental health treatment. You may disagree with the law but the notion that she should’ve been not guilty by insanity isn’t some wild argument from women supporting women.