FiddleHodlHomestead's avatar
FiddleHodlHomestead fiddlehodl@nostrplebs.com 2 weeks ago
This is such a mess. It seems that the Massachusetts law on insanity is written in such a way that a non guilty verdict is actually the only logical one. If I've understood correctly, all the jurors have to decide is if there is a reasonable doubt that she was in her right mind. And there's plenty of evidence - between dr reports and toxicology - that she was not in her right mind. The law is the problem here. Imagine a world where if there's any possibility that someone might be insane, they can't be convicted of murder. View quoted note →
↑ Parent

Replies (10)

A.A.Ron's avatar
A.A.Ron 2 weeks ago
Jurors have a moral duty to judge not only the facts of case but also the validity of the law and whether the law is being properly applied.
Silas's avatar
Silas Silas@NostrVerified.com 2 weeks ago
I was looking into that as well. It seems that the law is such that a person is insane until proven sane. Which is itself, completely insane.
Neve Farms's avatar
Neve Farms 2 weeks ago
When the third woman says “he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children” what 🤡 world are we living in. It sounds like a parody sketch of how the lizard people think
Sofia Angel's avatar
Sofia Angel 2 weeks ago
You are absolutely right about this! 💯 Even more so when the definition of insanity is as solid as the definition of a vaccine
A.A.Ron's avatar
A.A.Ron 2 weeks ago
That's what the judge will instruct the jurors to do, but judges have little to no legal authority to coerce jurors to do so. The jurors have live with consequences of their choices for the rest of their lives and "I was just following orders" may not be good enough to sleep at night. morality >> legality fija.org has a lot of good info on this subject.
↑