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

24

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.

-9

u/Planningism 18h ago

The default assumption is that an individual is innocent.

Good try bus.

5

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.

-13

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.

11

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???