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.
If i assesed that a woman would have a higher chance of killing my Children i would not start a family with Her.. A man must have a reasonable level of confidence in his future wife that his children will be safe with her..
So if a woman seeks to support and justify a woman killing 3 little ones by reason of a mental problem i would avoid getting married to her..
So if a woman seeks to support and justify a woman killing 3 little ones by reason of a mental problem i would avoid getting married to her..
Well....people who wished for teenage pregnancies to stop got their wish....
No teenage pregnancies and no teenage abortions either.
Young people are not engaging in any sort of romantic relationships whatsoever....
HUGE PROBLEM!
People do not know the benefits of having a permanent relationship far outweigh the potential risks....
All they see is the risks and detriments when following their biological imperatives.
My almost 30 y.o. SIL had one requirement for dating boys when in high school....they had to be able to hold a conversation. That's it....if they could do that she would go out with them. (She was a lil hottie back then too) she did not go on any dates.
Theres a huge relationship crisis between people....we do NOT know how to have relationships with the opposite sex.
They all were weirdos....that much is clear.
Separating feelings from facts is the jury's entire job.
Even the lone holdout was a wackanoodle.....
Does the prosecution actually try this case again with crappy evidence and a lousy investigation?
That's the real question.
How about the various lawsuits? Do they move forward?
i do not understand why any thinking parent would ship their daughters off to a college where heterosexulity is considered some kind of curse. Wouldn't that raise red flags, like what kind of institution (nut house) is that?
Ugggghhhh.....
That side by side is horrible....I'm not sure even a image filter can fix that....
She hath changed my judgments into wickedness
Ezekiel 5:5 Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her. 6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.
7 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you; 8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.
Ezekiel 5:5 Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her. 6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.
7 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you; 8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.
There only was only 12 of us in my graduating class. I graduated 6th and tied with 5 others.....(sounds better than the bottom)Ever been to a high school reunion?
And they never found me in time....had one without me. I've reconnected with many over FB...not all but many.
I'm having much more fun than they are....in every way that matters. PLUS I've stayed out of prison or mental health hospitals. Not all can say the same.
AND
I'm still the same person I've always been....just without the attitudes of others being intrusive.
They cannot say the same....
Yes, because there are only two categories of people in the world. sigh.
To be found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for murder, a defendant must prove that a severe mental illness completely impaired their mental state at the exact time the crime was committed
. It is not enough to simply have a psychiatric diagnosis; the mental disease must have directly caused a specific legal deficit
The Four Legal Standards
Depending on the jurisdiction where the trial takes place, the defense must satisfy one of these four legal frameworks:
- The M’Naghten Rule (The "Right/Wrong" Test): Used by more than half of U.S. states. To be acquitted, the defendant must prove that due to a mental disease, they did not understand the nature and quality of their actions, or if they did, they could not understand that what they were doing was wrong. For example, if a person legally believed they were squeezing a lemon rather than choking a person, or believed God commanded them to act, they would meet this standard. [1]
- The Model Penal Code (A.L.I. Standard): Used in many jurisdictions, this is a broader, less restrictive standard. It states that a defendant is not responsible if they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct OR could not conform their behavior to the law. [1, 2]
- The Irresistible Impulse Test: Used in tandem with M'Naghten in some states, this focuses on volition. It applies if a person understood that murder was morally and legally wrong, but a mental disease completely destroyed their power to choose between right and wrong, forcing them to commit the act. [1]
- The Federal Standard: Enacted by Congress under the Insanity Defense Reform Act, this applies to federal crimes. It requires the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a severe mental illness made them entirely unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of their acts. [1, 2, 3]
Misconceptions vs. Reality
- It is not a "get out of jail free" card: An insanity acquittal does not mean the person walks out of the courtroom a free individual. In almost all murder cases, the defendant is automatically committed to a high-security psychiatric hospital. They are often confined there for treatment just as long as—or longer than—the prison sentence they would have served. [1, 2]
- It is incredibly rare: Despite its frequency in television and movies, the insanity defense is invoked in less than 1% of felony cases and succeeds only about 25% of the time it is used. [1]
- The burden of proof shifts: In a standard criminal trial, the prosecution is entirely responsible for proving guilt. However, with an insanity defense, it is an affirm affirmative defense
The state's framework stands out nationally due to its unique legal standard and a highly unusual burden of proof that favors the defendant more than federal courts or most other states. [1, 2]
1. The Legal Test: The McHoul Standard
Massachusetts relies on a specific legal test established in the landmark 1967 case Commonwealth v. McHoul. To be found not guilty under this standard, it must be shown that at the exact time of the crime, the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, and as a result, they experienced at least one of two impairments: [1, 2]
- The Cognitive Prong: They lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct. Massachusetts courts emphasize the word "appreciate"—it means more than just a surface-level intellectual awareness that an act is illegal; it requires an emotional and moral understanding of the gravity of the act. [1, 2]
- The Volitional Prong: They lacked the substantial capacity to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. This applies if a person logically knew the act was wrong, but their mental defect entirely destroyed their ability to control their actions (similar to an irresistible impulse).
[1, 2, 3, 4]
Nope, You are the one who misrepresents, omits, and are selective, over and over again.
No there are four types.I thought there was three....
Those good at maths and those not so good at maths.
Those who are written in the book of Life, those who are not written in the book of life, and those who are still undecided and could go either way.
In the vast majority of U.S. states, the defense bears the burden of actively proving to a jury that the defendant was insane. Massachusetts is one of the few states where the burden shifts entirely to the prosecution. [1, 2, 3]
Once the defense introduces credible evidence that a mental illness was a factor during the crime, the defendant has no further burden of proof. Instead, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible. [1, 2]
To secure a conviction, the state must prove one of two negatives to a moral certainty: [1]
There is no evidence that the defendant had been diagnosed with a mental illness that would cause her to not understand that killing the children was wrong.
But by Mass. standards that is not enough, the prosecutor must prove at the time of the killing that this was not a "volition prong" meaning she was unable to control her actions.
That is proved by the evidence. She did a search online for ways to kill her children, she manipulated her husband to leave the house while she killed them and she killed them one at a time, bringing them down to the basement. All of these demonstrate a clear ability to control her actions.
So that leaves
The Cognitive Prong: They lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct. Massachusetts courts emphasize the word "appreciate"—it means more than just a surface-level intellectual awareness that an act is illegal; it requires an emotional and moral understanding of the gravity of the act.
It is up to the prosecutor to prove she did not have a moral understanding that killing the children was wrong. Now this cannot be taken so extreme that anyone who were to claim this would have to be declared innocent by reason of insanity, otherwise it is pointless. This must mean that the jury can look at the behavior and make a reasonable determination if the facts support that or not.
The evidence showed that she intentionally sent her husband out of the house so that she could kill the children and then when she needed more time extended his trip to keep him out of the house long enough for her to kill the children. She then, after successfully killing three children, attempted to kill herself unsuccessfully. So a jury has to look at these actions, did keeping her husband out of the house so that she could kill the children demonstrate that she understood it was wrong? Did her attempt at suicide afterwards demonstrate she was guilty and knew what she had done was wrong?
These are the relevant questions that all 12 jurors must answer. It seems very reasonable to me to conclude that yes, these actions are proof that she knew what she was doing was wrong. On the other hand if she had been previously diagnosed as being psychotic and unable to discern what was right or wrong I would lean toward that, especially if there were actions done by her that supported that assertion previously.
Depression is not proof that she couldn't discern right from wrong. Taking anti depressants that are not known for psychotic behavior being a side effect are not evidence that she was incapable of discerning right from wrong.
Please note in Mass. the Defense has to present "credible evidence" that she was not able to discern right from wrong. For example a previous diagnosis, or if she was taking medication that had that as a side effect. Neither was the case. You could still have credible evidence if you had a psychiatrist look at her "undiagnosed" behavior prior to the murders, but in fact she had been seeing psychiatrists, they had diagnosed her and none of them diagnosed that she was psychotic or unable to determine right from wrong.
Once the defense introduces credible evidence that a mental illness was a factor during the crime, the defendant has no further burden of proof. Instead, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible. [1, 2]
To secure a conviction, the state must prove one of two negatives to a moral certainty: [1]
- That the defendant did not actually have a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime.
- Or, if they did have one, that they still maintained the substantial capacity to understand what they were doing was wrong and to control their behavior. [1, 2]
There is no evidence that the defendant had been diagnosed with a mental illness that would cause her to not understand that killing the children was wrong.
But by Mass. standards that is not enough, the prosecutor must prove at the time of the killing that this was not a "volition prong" meaning she was unable to control her actions.
That is proved by the evidence. She did a search online for ways to kill her children, she manipulated her husband to leave the house while she killed them and she killed them one at a time, bringing them down to the basement. All of these demonstrate a clear ability to control her actions.
So that leaves
The Cognitive Prong: They lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct. Massachusetts courts emphasize the word "appreciate"—it means more than just a surface-level intellectual awareness that an act is illegal; it requires an emotional and moral understanding of the gravity of the act.
It is up to the prosecutor to prove she did not have a moral understanding that killing the children was wrong. Now this cannot be taken so extreme that anyone who were to claim this would have to be declared innocent by reason of insanity, otherwise it is pointless. This must mean that the jury can look at the behavior and make a reasonable determination if the facts support that or not.
The evidence showed that she intentionally sent her husband out of the house so that she could kill the children and then when she needed more time extended his trip to keep him out of the house long enough for her to kill the children. She then, after successfully killing three children, attempted to kill herself unsuccessfully. So a jury has to look at these actions, did keeping her husband out of the house so that she could kill the children demonstrate that she understood it was wrong? Did her attempt at suicide afterwards demonstrate she was guilty and knew what she had done was wrong?
These are the relevant questions that all 12 jurors must answer. It seems very reasonable to me to conclude that yes, these actions are proof that she knew what she was doing was wrong. On the other hand if she had been previously diagnosed as being psychotic and unable to discern what was right or wrong I would lean toward that, especially if there were actions done by her that supported that assertion previously.
Depression is not proof that she couldn't discern right from wrong. Taking anti depressants that are not known for psychotic behavior being a side effect are not evidence that she was incapable of discerning right from wrong.
Please note in Mass. the Defense has to present "credible evidence" that she was not able to discern right from wrong. For example a previous diagnosis, or if she was taking medication that had that as a side effect. Neither was the case. You could still have credible evidence if you had a psychiatrist look at her "undiagnosed" behavior prior to the murders, but in fact she had been seeing psychiatrists, they had diagnosed her and none of them diagnosed that she was psychotic or unable to determine right from wrong.
Good point. It turns out this whole "one lone holdout" has left out important information that there were four who thought she was guilty but when it became clear the 8 who were voting "innocent" were adamant and weren't changing three of them capitulated. So their anger at the fourth person not explaining himself was after very long and tedious and fruitless attempts at presenting a case for saying she was guilty.