Maybe we can argue/discuss again in the future.

I'd like that :)

Not to be a dick, but:

I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.

He's literally saying the opposite of "I have doubts" still here, he's saying "I have no doubts but these other people are interupting me like I do have doubts."

Now, that still seems like a dumb fucking thing to say, but he's not contradicting his doubtlessness, he's saying he's being doubted, that "as if" is very important for context.

I think that if a juror is pushing different possible theories, they have reasonable doubt.

That and the following statement from another juror:

She told NBC that Desronvil had “admitted he had reasonable doubt”

OH I see what you mean.

Yeah but in this context "reasonable doubt" is a very specific thing and "doubt" is just the concept, so, "he does not doubt that he has a reasonable doubt regarding her innocence" actually, as dumb as it sounds, could possibly be the valid interpretation of his statements.

But regardless, that second statement (from the post I replied to ykwim lol) doesn't mean "I had doubts," it means the literal opposite.

Also he could just be lying anyway, but those two OG statements quoted aren't (at least necessarily) contradictory.

kinda wild to me they jurors are talking publicly about their decisions. especially for a high profile case. I get that it's allowed but still seems like something that shouldn't be encouraged

even if they perjured to get on that jury

A criminal act to get on the jury should be disqualification from serving in said jury.

I don't care what leads a juror to their conclusion either, I care that the juror is actually supposed to be a juror.

They should have stricken him during the vetting process.

After that, tough titties, can't be upset if you actually want a fair system that can't be influenced by outside forces.

If the juror didn't cooperate for other reasons, for instance, if the law was unjust or being applied unfairly, though still lawfully, you'd probably want a juror who isn't trying to be a juror.

As far as the criminal act to get on the jury, charge him. But if he wasn't vetted out, it's nobody's fault except the lawyers'.

So this would work for you?

"She floats, so she's a witch, and all witches are guilty so she's guilty"

But if he wasn’t vetted out, it’s nobody’s fault except the lawyers’.

This particular juror lied about his criminal history during jury selection. He shares culpability here.

Feminism has spent the last 150+ years trying to convince society that women can be level-headed, responsible adults instead of the emotional and hysterical forever-children that they were painted as.

This caricature of uncontrolled emotionality and hysteria was the entire reasoning as to why they could have no agency and therefore could accept no responsibility. That they could not be trusted to act with logic, reason, and accountability, and that their female nature nerfed their cognitive abilities so much that they would always require male chaperones and “owners”, just like children.

With Lindsey Clancy, Women just collectively argued for the latter all over again.

I’m a leftist that’s two good shakes away from being a communist, but holy goddamn hell this argument that women are using - that she is not responsible and cannot be held accountable regardless of how clearly and intentionally she meticulously planned the killings - is rolling the argument for women’s rights all the way back, weaponizing it in the most effective possible way, and then handing it wrapped up in a gift bow directly to the political right.

She planned it. She was 100% responsible. The sooner women stop using the “hormones” excuse, the sooner we stop arming the political right.

Asserting that all women must be punished as a group for the actions of some is extremely sexist.

You are no leftist with views like these.

I’m not the one making that argument, dumbass.

Definitely not being cool.

Asserting that all women must be punished as a group for the actions of some is extremely sexist.

You are no leftist with views like these.

You… haven’t even understood what I wrote, have you?

I never said anything of the sort. I simply articulated what the political right will use as ammunition, and how women everywhere have handed the political right the very ammunition they intend to use.

Because the political right will point to all the female supporters of Lindsay Clancy and say, “See? They are demanding that she not be held accountable for her crimes. And if women cannot be held accountable - if they can use this “hormones” card whenever they want - they cannot be trusted with responsibility.”

And it is by that very method that the right will move mountains to roll back 150 years of genuine progress.

Be careful what you wish for. Responsibility comes with a heaping foundation of accountability, and if fathers with mental disorders can be nailed to the wall for infanticide, so should mothers. That is, after all, the basis of equality. And if we don’t implement true equality, why even call it that?

Yeah agreed

Telling women to be silent in case the right weaponizes what a minority of people are doing is in effect punishing all women for the actions of a few. You are working for conservatives by doing their work for them in advance. You are casting all women as irrational on the basis that the right will cast all women as irrational.

Telling women to be silent in case the right weaponizes what a minority of people are doing is in effect punishing all women for the actions of a few. You are working for conservatives by doing their work for them in advance. You are casting all women as irrational on the basis that the right will cast all women as irrational.

And if we aren’t clear on what the right will do - if we ignore it wholesale - their tactics will be all the more effective.

I’m NOT saying, “shut up”, I’m saying, “be aware of how what you are saying can and will be used against you and the rights you have fought so hard to achieve”.

And from my discussions with other women (quite a few hundred over the last several months), female supporters of Lindsay Clancy are very much in the majority, even up here in Canada. It isn’t some fringe group, it is an above-50% proportion of adult women who think that she is either totally innocent, or at the very least not criminally liable for a well-planned, well-orchestrated, and clearly forethought series of murders. And that is disturbing AF, especially considering the wildly imbalanced gender sentencing gap.

To be absolutely clear: a fair majority of women are openly rejecting true equality in sentencing for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with equality and everything to do with establishing and maintaining special gender-unique privileges.

Believing that post partum psychosis can lead to terrible tragedies is not an extremist fringe belief. Believing that better treatment and healthcare for pregnant and post partum women in order to prevent these kinds of tragedies is not an extremist fringe belief. I will not stand by and let people like you frame those beliefs as extremist or fringe or not worthy of being taken seriously.

Believing that post partum psychosis can lead to terrible tragedies is not an extremist fringe belief. Believing that better treatment and healthcare for pregnant and post partum women in order to prevent these kinds of tragedies is not an extremist fringe belief. I will not stand by and let people like you frame those beliefs as extremist or fringe or not worthy of being taken seriously.

Sweet Straw Man fallacy, bro. In my line of work, that’s called “dialling the intellectual bankruptcy up to 11”.

I mean, if you wildly misinterpret my statements of “this is what the baddies will weaponize against you and women’s rights” as anything else other than exactly that, then there is nothing else I can do; you are fully insulated from any reasonable or rational debate. You are acting as a troll, manufacturing rage to more easily spout lies and claim falsehoods.

Because I never said anything of the above quoted, either online or off.

I suspect you're arguing because you side with the juror, not because the logic is sound, and I have a problem with that, but let's stick with the facts.

But if he wasn't vetted out, it's nobody's fault except the lawyers'.

He perjured himself, as in, he lied, on purpose or otherwise. Lawyers aren't mind readers or psychics, you can't place complete blame on them because someone else commited a crime to get on the jury and they didn't catch it.

The system did exactly what it's designed to do, it mistrialed because a juror didn't follow the rules

The problem I have, and most people should have, is that because of one juror who didn't follow the rules we are extending the time, suffering, cost, and damages that shouldn't have happened.

They should have stricken him during the vetting process.

Yes! They should have, and because the juror SNUCK into the jury unfairly, it wasn't a fair trial.

He IS the problem. He started it. He made ALL of this worse. Not the lawyers, who could have done better, not the system, designed in the way that it is, not even the woman who murdered her children.

This is already an incredibly terrible thing, but people like the juror who lie to get what they want make it worse for everyone else.

Defending the person who commited a crime to make things worse because he wasn't caught early enough is just asinine.

women’s rights

What rights are at stake here? Women’s right to kill their toddlers?

Finally, a sane take. Thank you

Can you please be more specific?

"I'm not sure if she bashed his head in with a hammer, or a lead pipe, or a candlestick, but I am sure she bashed his head in."

This is a person describing three different possible theories, without admitting to reasonable doubt of criminal culpability.

what a fucking tragedy.

This guy is guilty for wearing sneakers, and you can't even question me. This is a totally perfect system and I can derail the whole case because this guys wearing sneakers

The only person who can determine if he had any doubt is him. The only person who can determine if his doubt is reasonable is also him. The decision of a juror is not subject to anyone else's opinion.

All the jurors except for the one guy found reasonable doubt though, not just the women jurors. And the outlier guy really is a piece of work. Clancey will never be free in any event, she's paralyzed and either gonna be in jail or a mental hospital.

Men have mental health issues related to hormones too, that is not by any means something unique to women. I get what you are saying but dudes make the same case for mental incapacity/insanity.

Doesn't matter. The only thing they need to say is guilty or not guilty. That's all they can be responsible for if you want free and fair trials.

I'm defending the system. He'll have his day in court too.

And that's what makes it a mistrial.

He'll have his day in court too.

Thanks.

I had to look this up because that in no way "ensures a free and fair trial"..the opposite is true

A jury is required to vote based strictly on the evidence. A juror can be removed for voting on a coin flip

No.

You were focused on the juror and now that it's an indefensible position to side with you're saying that wasn't the case.

The system did exactly what it's designed to do, it doesn't need defending.

The juror should not have been a juror, according to the system, and you haven't acknowledged that.

You clearly haven't been paying attention. The entire argument I'm making is you can't force a juror to come to a particular verdict. If you could, you no longer have an impartial jury.

Did he break his oath? Yes. That's a separate issue. A juror must be free to come to any conclusion of their own mind, or else it isn't a fair trial, full stop.

I've said all I mean to say. Go ahead and have the last word or twist my meaning if it makes you feel better.

And they didn't remove him, they tried to force a verdict, so how is that a fair trial?