Could probably hear the “FOH!!” from space

[u/MGLLN]

[u/GooginTheBirdsFan]

Bro what???? Like at first I was like “well shit it had to be demonstrated if they weren’t getting how aggressive it was”

“Wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that was used to prove why he was thinking the way he was”

Ohhh

[u/AnsibleAnswers → u/GooginTheBirdsFan]

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.

[u/TheGoddamnSpiderman → u/AnsibleAnswers]

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?

[u/phenotype76 → u/TheGoddamnSpiderman]

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.

[u/duckk99 → u/phenotype76]

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 

[u/Ambitious-Field-3645 → u/phenotype76]

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.

[u/Planningism → u/phenotype76]

The default assumption is that an individual is innocent.

Good try bus.

[u/phenotype76 → u/Planningism]

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.

[u/scyardman → u/phenotype76]

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.

[u/skywalk21 → u/scyardman]

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.

[u/Ektar91 → u/scyardman]

Jail time???