Context?

Lindsay Clancy killed her children and claimed she heard a voice that compelled her to do it. Jury has been stuck in deliberation because one juror wouldn't budge.

Based

So 11 people decided her "hearing voices" was fine and one sane person said no way?

these memes are not funny. they're not bait. they're literally right wing propaganda.

No, the trial is whether she gets sent to prison or to an asylum (mental health facility). Either outcome of this trial means she will be detained against her will for a long time. The lone juror wants her sent to jail, the other jurors want her to be sent to a mental health facility.

Not quite: https://lemmy.world/comment/25683130

Mmm-hmm. If people are taking political inspiration from shitposts then I don’t think the instance / community / OP is the problem.

Here’s the thing, on 9gag that meme would have all the cellar dwellers whipped into a misogynistic frenzy - for sure. Context is important. This place here, though, is explicitly for low quality, low effort, offensive content, i.e. shitposting.

I think the meme more than qualifies…

Do i have an opinion on the trial? No. I don’t know the law of the commonwealth nor did i sit through 7 weeks of testimony and argument, nor was i present during jury deliberations. I am unqualified and unprepared to have any thought either way. I just feel sad for every single person, alive and dead, that was involved.

As someone who's been through PPD, it's not funny

So, no, they had 5 choices, one of which was completely not guilty. It was still a trial and the prosecution still had the burden of proof to prove she even did it in the first place.

It seems 11 people were ready to vote not guilty entirely and 1 person refused to follow the law after expressing reasonable doubt which caused a mistrial.

Also, my source of information in this instance was, in fact, a video recording of the judge giving the instructions to the jury at the beginning of the trial and before deliberations. It seems to me that you may want to check your sources, because they're incorrect and you're spreading harmful misinformation.

Sorry but i have to agree but probably not for the reasons all the crazy right wingers have.

The simple reality is that PPD is a very real problem that people need to be aware of. You need to be aware of it so you have a chance of catching yourself making a horrific mistake, and to cross-check any medical advice you might be getting that isnt

That said: there is simply no practical way to continue living after killing your kids regardless of whether or not you were in the driver's seat when it happened. Kill yourself. Plain and simple, that is the only right course of action. There can be no normal life for you after that happens. We understand putting a dog down when it bites someone, an act as horrific as killing your children is something so heinous that the responsible thing to do is take you out of the equation entirely. It's not fair, it is entirely possible that this woman truly was not in control, but it's moot. Nobody is disputing that this woman killed her kids. There may be a million factors why others are also culpable. I am not disputing that. But I can't imagine any parent who would want to continue living after this. What hope for a normal life could you possible have? What is this woman trying to cling to by pleading not guilty?

If I did this to my kids under the influence of a drug where I literally had no choice, I would kill myself. It's not even a question. The fact that she tried to mount any sort of defense at all is extremely suspect to me.

So, you're just wrong.... And loudly, which just makes it seem like you're purposely spreading misinformation. You can literally listen to the judge's instructions to the jury both at the beginning and end of the trial. He explicitly states that the state of Massachusetts is still required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact commit the crime she was accused of regardless of the insanity defence. There were 5 possible verdicts read to the jury.

Going for the NGRMI defense just means the state also have to prove she was in her right mind.

The jury is charged, under oath mind you, to carry out the law as stated in the instructions given by the judge. If they have any reasonable doubt, they are instructed to find the defendant not guilty. A single juror expressed in deliberations that he had reasonable doubt but still refused to follow his oath and find her not guilty; the implication here is that the juror knowingly lied under oath to the judge about being able to carry out his duty under the law and torpedoed the trial based on personal convictions despite acknowledging reasonable doubt.

She DID try to kill herself, and ended up in a wheelchair. She's living with the consequences every day.

Why is Empathy considered a weakness?

What is this woman trying to cling to by pleading not guilty?

Enough freedom to be able to kill herself?

I'm sure we'll hear more about it as the jurors are interviewed by the media. The notes to the judge did not explicitly state the position of the other 11 jurors. The mention of reasonable doubt heavily implies that it would have been a not guilty verdict, as not guilty is the only verdict that would be appropriate if there were reasonable doubt.

this person just admitted that their own lack of imagination, with regard to the resilience of the human spirit, lead them to want to enact punishment and imprisonment on syrangers. i have to applaud the introspection, even if the outcome disgusts me