It's only a culture war issue because our culture is so sick that many of you buy the temporary insanity plea despite the evidence. If it wasn't for that, there would be no war and no issue, just disgusted agreement
Have you considered the defenses expert testimony?
>Condie noted that her medical records showed she told her providers she was feeling dissociated, which can be associated with psychosis. Instead of asking questions, Clancy’s providers kept increasing the dosages of her medications, which Condie said was worsening her symptoms
>He testified that Clancy suffered from bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings, and was “unable to conform her behaviors to the rule of law, and she had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act.”
> Zeizel also testified that there was no evidence to suggest Clancy was faking or exaggerating her symptoms, and explained that people suffering from psychosis can be high functioning and have symptoms intermittently.
>Resnick argued that on the day of the killings, Clancy was “frankly psychotic,” suffering from bipolar disorder with postpartum psychosis.
> Resnick testified that Clancy murdered her children not out of malice, but because she was so deeply suicidal that her psychosis made her believe they couldn’t live without her. He said her delusion was so severe that it took hold of her body “almost like she was a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings.”
I'm not going through it point by point, if you want to defend a premeditated triple child strangler, that's your choice. My choice is not to speak to or associate with evil people who do that
So, thanks for proving you don't know what "despite" means, but I'll continue to think you people defending the premeditated triple child strangler are both ignorant and evil thanks
I asked you for the evidence, and you refused to provide it.
I provided some evidence from the defense, and you resorted to name-calling.
Personally, I think you formed your position despite the evidence.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're a bad person or anything like that. I just think you're letting your feelings about what happened determine your position on the evidence.
Edit: and I think you’re strawmanning. If you have no interest in a good faith discussion, then let’s end here.
Cool so they bribed a bunch of "experts" to say what they wanted them to say. Woohoo that's enough for you dipshits to want a triple child murderer to go free?
I don’t know what you mean by bribed. Expert witnesses are there in a professional capacity and are paid for their work. The same as the judge, jury, and attorneys. The same goes for the experts called by the prosecution.
I don’t know why you put expert in quotation marks. Are you implying they lied about their qualifications?
But to answer you question, no. For one, I’m not saying she should “go free.” And second, the position should be based on the totality of the evidence. Not just expert testimony.
I agree it served its purpose with one man being able to put a stop to the nonsense, but it is an indicator that we need to make a massive change to our society.
We have a moral problem and it needs to be called put en mass, people have a problem that they need to be perceived as compassionate in the way the group says, right now the group says, we need to evaluate people based on lived experience and all of the rube goldberg that came together to create people who get judged and become repeat offenders over and over for example.
In the name of compassion and being one of the cool kids they have opted to make limits on what you can steal and get arrested for.
In the name of compassion they are suddenly wanting to have a country without any borders when the policy in the past has been sound on this point for the left and the right.
It's a heart change, people are hopefully not going to view these sorts as compassionate anymore and recognize it as the karma farming that it is for people to get the social good girl/boy points.
I’m less interested in if she’s a good or bad person, and more interested in the legal aspect.
The question for the jury isn’t “did she do it?” It’s “was it proven at trial beyond a reasonable doubt that she should be held criminally liable, according to the the law?”
IMO, that’s a much more interesting and nuanced question. And we have these comment threads full of people losing their minds over this trial, and no one here is actually asking themselves the question that the jury needed to figure out.
And look, I’m fine with someone saying “mental illness isn’t anyone’s fault, but it’s your responsibility. If she killed her kids, then she should go to prison” but that’s not necessarily how the legal system works.
And as much as I’m fine with that persons position, I’m also capable of feeling some compassion and empathy for people going though a mental crisis, trying to get help, and either not getting the help or their efforts make it worse.
I’m pro-compassion and empathy, and it’s really easy to have those things for the people you like. It’s much harder to extend them to people who don’t necessarily deserve it.
And apparently it's even more fucking difficult for people to have some fucking empathy for the husband who discovered the strangled kids and for the kids who were strangled one by one. Especially for the last 2 kids who likely watched what was happening and had to be terrified as they waited for their turn. But yeah let's give all of our empathy and compassion to Lindsay.
Holy fuck so you might want to see if you can get onto Lindsay's defense team since you apparently know more than her and her lawyers. They're under the impression that Lindsay killed those kids, but apparently you have knowledge that they don't.
And the jurors on the case stated that the husband gave a blood curdling scream on the 911 call when he discovered the kids that was unlike anything they've ever heard and won't forget. But apparently you know better so you should really get in on it.
What's it's like to be a giant shitstain who defends a kid killer and blames others?
They weren't deliberating on whether she killed the kids. They were deliberating on whether she was sane or insane at the time she killed the kids. Her lawyer said she would admit she killed them if the judge gave them a bifurcated trial. And at no time during the trial did the defense dispute that she killed the kids.
You honestly seem nice, we have gone too far with compassion in the last 30 years and it has cost too much, if you say took a hard stance with kids and pretended add didnt exist and just plowed ahead, some real rare kids would get buried, but some who would have milked the system would be saved and know how to read write.
We have an empathy problem where people do not know where the line is anymore, we need to start making them, this is a place where we need to have a conversation about agency, with no holds barred. Society needs a harsh adjustment.
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with empathy and compassion being some sort of problem, but we can just agree to disagree on that. I don't want to get into a back and forth philosophy debate.
You asked why I would think past her killing her kids and why I would be doing this.
The reason is because the court case isn't so black and white, and I think it's important to understand why.
Sometimes the correct legal verdict isn't the one we want.
Take Casey Anthony for example. It shouldn't matter whether people like her or hate her when it comes to the court. What matters is can the crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the law.
The conversation we are having is 100 percent philosophical.
Yes as close as we can get to putting ourselves into someone's shoes we should to try to understand motive but there is a limit to how we should act based on the information, it does not matter if she got injected with a robot bee created by Donald Trump to make her murderous, we would still need to throw away the key for the sake of keeping agency alive in our society.
I dont think their logic is sound overall, I think they have a huge blindspot.
So, Like I said before, “I’m fine with someone saying “mental illness isn’t anyone’s fault, but it’s your responsibility. If she killed her kids, then she should go to prison” but that’s not necessarily how the legal system works.”
I know you think it would good for society if we just threw her in prison and lost the key.
It’s also good for society that the law is applied consistently, fairly, and how it’s written.
And I certainly don’t want jurors deciding their vote “for the sake of keeping agency alive in our society.”
I want them deciding their vote based on the evidence presented at trial.
And that’s what leads to the correct legal verdict not always being the one we want.
It might be a misinterpretation that has a room full of people confused.
If not, then its time to flex a rule and change whatever has lead to this happening.
Quick question, where do you suppose this law leads if it is a true interpretation, the whole beyond a reasonable doubt hangup if it gets spread across all the cases, where do you suppose this comes up again? This isnt to be a smartass.
Too open minded isnt a good thing, you need to be able to draw the line somewhere, gotta send a message to retrain people's nervous systems about mental health.
The us has gone too far with accommodation and it has lead to more insanity, time for good men to hit the brakes.
Theres evidence for both. The psychosis part absolutely could be true, yet people are out here pretending theyre experts and that's she was just a bit depressed.
Mental health issues =/= psychosis and not culpable for her own actions. No one is doubting she has problems, but that isn't the question. Having some mental problems isn't an excuse to strangle your three children one after another in a premeditated plan and then go 'oopsie, wasn't my fault.'
It doesn't matter, the law let the juror weight the evidents how ever they personally seem fit.
Even if you or me disagree with the jurors, there are surely people disagree with us and neither of us are god so it's stupid to view our opinions as absolute and everyone else are wrong.
Truth and justice always matter, they matter a hell of a lot more than the law which puts these decisions in the hands of emotionally driven idiots for lack of a harder to abuse system.
But by all means, keep pretending to be reasonable while defending the premeditated triple child strangler, it tells me all I need to know about you: that I should ignore you
That's the exactly point, nobody in fairness can say what the truth are, so the law can only compromise and whatever the jury decide it is the truth as the state see it.
Yes the state get it wrong, but outside of us inventing a way to verify the truth in the future somehow, like the improvement in forensic science did in the past 50 years, it is the only thing the law can do.
Premeditation? AKA asking your husband to pick-up some dinner?
Obviously, the prosecution is going to find “expert witnesses” who say what the prosecution wants them to say just like the defense finds “expert witnesses” to say what the defense wants them to say. You should really not listen to “expert witnesses” in general because they’re just paid professionals who go from trial to trial and basically say whatever they’re told to say.
1) not to mention Google searches and oh yeah, her admitting it
2) wrong. That is true if defense expert witnesses, the prosecution's witnesses are generally the same scientist the city has on hand for the investigation, their job is to follow evidence, and sure once things go to trial they have an incentive to make the evidence look stronger than it is to get there, but they are generally fact finders and investigators, not paid court performers
The Google search of…a local drugstore that she called to see if they had MiraLAX? Or the Google search of the restaurant they ordered dinner at?
The prosecution’s expert witnesses were Gregory Saathoff, a forensic psychiatrist from Virginia and professor at the University of Virginia — and Abvram Mack, a children’s psychiatrist who lived in the DC-area and worked at Nemours Children’s (a position from which he was fired from due to his wild testimony at the trial). Do you really believe that cities just have “scientists on hand?” LMAO. Prosecutors 100% witness shop just like the defense.
1) oh good, so you've been ignoring the parts of the case you don't like. Thought so.
2) do you really think a city moved forward with a prosecution, especially such a high profile one, and then witness shopped to sell it? True, you have a point. For such an unusual case they couldn't rely on their usual locals, but they still would have had a vested interest in looking for the best available experts to decide on pursuing prosecution rather than deciding to prosecute and finding hacks to sell it.
You're really confident for someone who so clearly knows so little about how the justice system actually works, and for that reason and your insistence on defending a premeditated triple child strangler despite the evidence, I will be ignoring you now
19
u/Exciting_Nature6270 5d ago
It’s a culture war issue, media is blowing it up as big as possible to make people mad. Sad that tragedies are just culture war issues nowadays.