Her plea is that she was the one who murdered the kids. The mistrial does not erase her plea. All the mistrial did was still leave it up to a trial to determine if she was guilty for her actions or not.
Modern Relationships and Lindsey Clancy Case. 3 Children Strangled. Overwhelming Support From Females and Male Backlash.
- Thread starter Lightbeamrider
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes I know semantics are important when I need them to be important and not when they work against my bias.
Even at an entry level Grade 11 "Understanding Law" in high school they clearly teach the difference between murder and kill.
Killing describes what happened.
Murder describes a particular legal representation of the killing.
A person can cause another person's death without legally committing murder.
You want to look uninformed that is your right i guess.
Yes, I can be driving the speed limit without being under the influence of drugs and someone steps in front of my car, and gets killed. That is not murder. Why? Because the laws of the road apply to pedestrians and jay walkers as well as drivers.
But the three children were murdered. To say they were "killed" is a horrific use of semantics.
Also this woman's plea was not that the death of these children wasn't criminal, it was. And since it was criminal they were murdered. Her plea was not that they weren't murdered, her plea was that she was not criminally responsible for the crime she committed. So yes, the children were murdered, she murdered them, that is not up for debate. The only question is whether or not she was capable of determining right from wrong when she was murdering them.
If she is determined to have not been liable she will go to an insane asylum for the criminally insane. That is right, "criminally insane" because she committed a crime. If they determine that she was not capable of discerning right from wrong it doesn't mean we all have to be blind as well. Just because an insane person doesn't know they are murdering three kids doesn't mean I have to play along as well.
You are confusing apples with oranges.
1st, the three kids were murdered, that doesn't change if and when she is found to not being crimally liable. What does change is the classification.
1. The Fact of the Killing (Actus Reus)
A person was killed due to the intentional or physical actions of another. In medical and forensic terms, the cause of death is still a homicide (one human killing another). The victim's life was still taken unlawfully.
2. The Mental Requirement (Mens Rea)
For an act to be legally defined as "murder," the prosecution must prove two things:
- The physical act of killing.
- The mental intent (malice aforethought) to commit the crime.
Now she has not been found not guilty due to insanity yet. So at present the three children were murdered. Is she a convicted murderer? No.
But even if they do determine after a second trial that she lacked the capacity to form criminal intent, then at that point you can argue that she did not commit murder, but you can't argue that the kids were not murdered. The children were murdered, that is a fact and the homicide doesn't change because of a ruling by 12 jurors.
Legal Outcome
Instead of being convicted of murder and sent to prison, the individual is acquitted of criminal liability. However, they are not simply set free. They are almost always committed to a secure psychiatric facility for treatment, often for a duration that can last as long as, or longer than, a standard prison sentence.
So once again, let's state this clearly, the three children were murdered. The plea from Lindsay concedes that she was the one who killed them. However, she is arguing that she was not capable at that time to determine right from wrong. For example in the movie "Primal Fear" the main protagonist, played by Norton, was also determined to be incapable of determining between right and wrong.
Until the point that the ruling comes down that she is not guilty due to being insane everyone is free to refer to this as a "murder trial" where three kids were murdered and this woman has conceded that she was the one who killed them.
I know all about mens rea and actus rea, all that you post and a lot more so no need for all this info.
The fact remains yes the children were murdered until someone is convicted you cannot say they are guilty of the murder.
I know you are trying to blur the lines here, it is faulty reasoning and not how the law operates.
Really, what is the law that says you cannot say that? Ideally people would be clear that she has not been convicted of murder, yet. But she also has not been found not guilty. So I can say "the children were murdered and she conceded that she did it". But it would be better if I added the caveat "she conceded that she did it but is arguing that she shouldn't be held criminally responsible". Fair enough.
So let me say this in big letters so we can put this whole thing to rest.
I agree with HeIsHere:
The three children were murdered, Lindsay has conceded that she was the one who killed them based on her plea at the trial, but she is arguing that she doesn't want to be held criminally responsible for the three murders".
[
Your argument is faulty, admitting to a crime does not automatically mean a person is guilty of the crime.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what convicts a person.
Plus I would read the post by @Sculpt, event the admission is not a clear admission with a clear mind.
You think you are being clever, but you are not, you are just consumed with your bias along with the fact you have not really even looked at the evidence nor read the court documents.
For some one who does not care you sure have a lot to say.
Your argument is faulty, admitting to a crime does not automatically mean a person is guilty of the crime.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what convicts a person.
Plus I would read the post by @Sculpt, event the admission is not a clear admission with a clear mind.
You think you are being clever, but you are not, you are just consumed with your bias along with the fact you have not really even looked at the evidence nor read the court documents.
For some one who does not care you sure have a lot to say.
my response had all the nuance, using killed instead of murdered, clarifying that it was by her plea and not by a signed confession, etc. Your response is the one without nuance and the one that thinks you are clever when in reality you have been deceived.
Never said that.*Says the person who admits they have never looked at the forensic evidence or lack of it and does not care.
Why don't you simply state in detail, with appropriate nuance, your version of my statement
The three children were murdered, Lindsay has conceded that she was the one who killed them based on her plea at the trial, but she is arguing that she doesn't want to be held criminally responsible for the three murders".
1. Do you agree the three children were murdered?
2. Do you agree that her plea during the trial concedes that she killed the children?
3. Do you also agree that her plea is arguing that she doesn't want to be held criminally responsible?
If the answer is yes to those three things, then what is the issue and if the answer is no to one of those then tell us what it is you disagree with.
For example, in point #3 I struggled with whether to say "she doesn't want to be held criminally responsible" with "she shouldn't be". But I realized the issue of should or shouldn't is up to the court and the jury to decide. Whether or not Lindsay thinks she should or shouldn't be is irrelevant, it is up to the jury to decide, But then I realized she had the option for pleading guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. It was her choice. Her lawyer could advise, but in the end it is her choice. Hence "She doesn't want" won out.
*I said I never watched the whole trial. I also said I watched all of Patrick's testimony. So I have seen some of the evidence, some of the timeline, I heard the 911 call, I saw the circumstantial evidence that would convict Lindsay. Etc. I also never said I didn't care. What I said was I am not interested in second guessing the jury. If 12 had convicted her that would not be an issue to me since I didn't sit through the whole trial.
Got another question for you... Is King David in Heaven or "asleep" right now?
Red herring fallacy. Also, I don't answer questions to my questions.
Let me just note... Under standard principles of criminal jurisprudence and under standard United States criminal procedure, choosing to mount a "Lack of Criminal Responsibility" defense is not a formal legal admission that the defendant committed the physical act.
Legal Admission is not same as Concession of Fact due to the formal procedure of this type of trial. Procedural concession is not admitting to anyone you did it.
And lets be fair here... Clancy and her Defense formally demanded a trial where she pleaded not guilty of the physical act and not guilty by reason of psychotic break. She woke up after 7 days on a ventilator/coma with her wrists and throat cut, permanently paralyzed from the waist down and no memory of these events. You have quite a connundrum.
There has been no legal Defense' rebuttal of what the prosecutor asserts happened. Without that type of trial can we know who committed the murder in either reality or through trial by jury? You can say you're pretty sure she did it, or that you're pretty sure she's lying if you like. We're in free countries.
Let me just note...Claims have been made that she did not confess to doing the crime, that is technically true but very deceitful. What she has said is she doesn't remember, it was a dream. Second, the trial was not about whether or not she did it, so that question never came up during the trial. So when they say she never said she did it they are skirting the fact that this was because it wasn't up for debate and wasn't part of the trial.
The evidence clearly pointed to her being the one who did it and her claim that she doesn't remember is basically what was on trial. Although it is neither a denial nor an admission, the reason is they have conceded the point.
Also, to be fair, bifurcating the trial would have been extremely prejudicial in her favor. She gets to try and plead not guilty to the crime and if that fails then plead insanity. She could have simply pleaded "not guilty" so at the very least her plea was an admission that the evidence against her was overwhelming and the Defense had no viable counter claim.
The reason the defense had no rebuttal to the assertion that she killed the three kids is because she claims to have no recollection. She can't argue that she didn't do it while still being believable that she has no recollection. This is why a bifurcated trial was extremely prejudicial, it meant she could argue she didn't do it in one trial without hurting her ability to claim she didn't remember in the other trial.
