r/BlackPeopleTwitter • u/MGLLN • 21h ago

Could probably hear the “FOH!!” from space

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

12.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

115

u/AnsibleAnswers 20h ago

The issue is how the laws are written in Massachusetts. The facts of the case were genuinely irrelevant to the law because both the prosecution and defense agreed on the facts. In MA, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant is of sound mind to be tried if they use an insanity defense. In most other states, the defense has to prove insanity to use it as a defense. I think we see here why it's a bad idea to presume insanity until proven reasonable.

Like it or not, it's pretty clear why all but one juror chose to acquit. It was the legally correct decision given the law. The juror seems to have been going over facts that were entirely irrelevant to the actual legal case being presented.

27

u/TheGoddamnSpiderman 19h ago

I would guess the people in Massachusetts who drafted that law would probably say something like:

The defendant is presumed innocent to begin with and should only be found guilty if the prosecution can prove their case does not leave any room for reasonable doubt. So if the law they are trying to find the defendant guilty of violating says someone is only guilty if they were in their right mind at the time, why wouldn't it be on the prosecution to prove that there's no reasonable doubt that the defendant was in their right mind just like the prosecution would have to prove what they're saying for any other relevant aspect of the case?

23

u/phenotype76 19h ago

Because I (and most people) feel like the default assumption is yes, you are in your right mind at any given moment, and it should be on the defense to prove that you weren't. If you have an existing diagnosis, sure, but absent that -- and Clancy had not been diagnosed with schizophrenia or anything -- then it seems unreasonable to force the prosecution to have to prove that you WEREN'T suffering from an illness that there's no evidence you were ever suffering from.

5

u/duckk99 13h ago

Hey I really enjoyed reading the post you replied to and your reply. 

“Oh yeah he’s got a point”

“Oh wait this guys has a point too”

I see the pros and cons, thanks for the perspective 

2

u/Ambitious-Field-3645 10h ago

100% agree with you on the onus shifting to the defense and that being the most logical way of thinking about it. And you're correct that most people want it that way since it shifts to the defense to prove by preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing in about 70% of states. But in Mass the defense only needs to raise the defense and present some amount of evidence and then the prosecution must prove, essentially, sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seems fucking nuts to me, but I do think she should have been acquitted according to Mass law. But we don't get to second guess the jurors and that includes our hold out here.

-10

u/Planningism 18h ago

The default assumption is that an individual is innocent.

Good try bus.

4

u/phenotype76 14h ago

Correct. Innocent, and in their correct mind. Apparently the laws of MA disagree about the correct mind part, but the defense already stipulated to the facts of the case, so we know she did kill her children. And any juror is free to disregard case law they feel is immoral -- like finding someone not guilty solely because the prosecution couldn't prove they weren't crazy, even in the absence of proof that she WAS.

-12

u/scyardman 16h ago

OK phenotype... you make a reasonable argument... EXCEPT... your opinion does not matter nearly as much as MA law. This lone juror thought like you... and obviously ignored MA law. This lone juror should get jail time for his actions.

12

u/skywalk21 16h ago

You should never get jail time for serving in a jury regardless of whether your verdict goes against written law or not. Disagreeing with an unjust law or an unjust interpretation of a law is your duty as a juror.

8

u/Ektar91 16h ago

Jail time???

16

u/tuscaloser 19h ago

Eh, we congratulate jurors on jury nullification (also going against the legally “correct” decision) all the time. It’s risky for the prosecution and defense to let a jury decide.

22

u/lwelle 16h ago

Jury nullification is the opposite. You’re allowed to vote ‘not guilty’ for no reason, but you’re not allowed to vote ‘guilty’ without good reason.

7

u/tuscaloser 16h ago

The person above me was talking about "legally correct" decisions, not "allowed" decisions.

3

u/SelbetG 13h ago

you’re not allowed to vote ‘guilty’ without good reason.

I mean you are, there isn't anything stopping the jury from doing so, it just won't work because it can just get overturned.

4

u/Cold_Respond_7656 17h ago

The way I read that law is that in MA if you say you were crazy at the time, the state has to prove you weren’t and all you need is a RX for Seroquel and that’s your reasonable doubt.

MA cases are about to get wild with folks chancing their arm on this

2

u/ShepardCommander01 11h ago

The triple homicide of her own children was irrelevant and immaterial? Lmao

1

u/AnsibleAnswers 6h ago

Yes. That's literally what an insanity defense does.

Modern, democratic justice systems are not designed to satiate your blood lust. Sorry?

1

u/BlueHaze464 18h ago

Yeah this is ridiculous

There's literally zero evidence for her alleged spontaneous 20 minute psychosis

If you can't prove it in this case you literally can't even prove it short of the criminal texting or writing that they're gonna fake it

Any person with documented depression should be able to claim insanity (by psychosis) in MA

18

u/AnsibleAnswers 16h ago

That's untrue. She went to multiple doctors for insomnia, intrusive thoughts, and suicidal ideation. Her mental illness' progression is well documented, and the defense is suggesting that they will pursue a malpractice suit.

9

u/BlueHaze464 16h ago edited 12h ago

It is completely true

Her mental health decline is irrelevant when there were literally zero symptoms of psychosis depsite her visiting multiple psychiatrists

Not one peep to either doctors, family, or friends

Psychosis is the only mental illness relevant to her not guilty verdict

Compare that to Andrea Yates who had documented auditory hallucinations way before her crime

Lindsay literally never heard or saw anything until she sent Patrick away, and never after

4

u/AnsibleAnswers 14h ago edited 14h ago

Insomnia alone can cause psychosis.

Again, the issue here is that it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is sane. The defense did not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy had psychosis.

3

u/BlueHaze464 12h ago

Oh I know

She's 100% faking the hell out of the psychosis

She should've also been found not guilty by reason of insanity because MA laws are a joke

The 1 man who held out the jury was also in the wrong because he admitted there was reasonable doubt and yet refused to debate or give reasons for why he didn't accept it, he should've been thrown out

It's a clown show in all fronts

1

u/Kamenev_Drang 6h ago

Insomnia will trigger out and out psychosis 

3

u/jscummy 17h ago

Wasn't sure if it was just me but yeah that structure of the law seems absurd. Unless I've got some bizarre history of seeking treatment for mental illness and being told repeatedly I'm fine, it seems like the prosecutors job is insanely hard here

3

u/LockHimUpForever 17h ago

Which its why you can still base your decision on circumstancial if you want to. When I was a juror they made that very clear.

2

u/jscummy 17h ago

Wdym by base your decision on circumstantial?

4

u/LockHimUpForever 16h ago

If there is any circumstantial evidence, you can use that in your decision as a juror. Essentially, its the version of common sense dictating something.

1

u/BlueHaze464 17h ago

For sure, doesn't help when all the experts say stuff like "Well it's very unlikely, it's very strange for that to happen so long after pregnancy, etc. But it can still happen"

7

u/jscummy 17h ago

Even outside of this case and in general

Like how do you go about conclusively proving that someone was of sound mind, beyond a reasonable doubt, and specifically at the time of the crime?

Seems like just about anyone could claim a temporary psychosis, and most doctors wouldn't want to outright say they're lying unless they had extensive history with the patient/defendant

3

u/BlueHaze464 16h ago

They can't even contradict her because objectively there's always a chance when it comes to mental illness, psychiatry isn't a hard science like that

As I mentioned, if there's a record of mental health decline, outside of the criminal explicitly previously stating they're gonna fake a psychosis, there's no way to prove sanity beyond reasonable doubt when there's not even footage

It's not even restricted to women either, anyone can have a psychosis