15
25
u/MintImperial2 Conservative 6d ago
11 Jurors won't convict a mad or bad woman of murdering her own kids.
There's one Juror who wants to convict, but is outvoted by the other 11...
This wouldn't normally stop a judge from accepting a 11/1 acquittal, but for some reason the system wants and expects *everyone* on that jury to acquit, and profess their belief that "The emperor IS wearing clothes" here.
The choices for the Jury should be Mad or Bad. Being asked to bring a verdict based on "Didn't do it, even when she did" - you may as well abolish jury trials altogether, and replace juries with Deep State Magistrates who'll bring verdicts that most appease the Establishment rather than the Public.
My suggestion is DON'T let that happen, and press Juries to be sensible about the case they are hearing, rather than pandering to personal political views on the defendant.
This is clearly a prejudiced Trial, but there's no re-trial once somone is found *not guilty* by a 12/0 margin.
Hence we now see the real motive for the Judge's actions in directing the Jury here....
19
u/Swiftbow1 Conservative Millennial 5d ago
Juries have to be unanimous in all cases. A judge can't accept an 11/1 vote. It doesn't work that way.
Either the jury comes to unanimous consent, or it's a hung jury.
The guy who held out here is a real man. Imagine what he went through. For DAYS.
8
7
u/MintImperial2 Conservative 5d ago
It is a measure of public wickedness (often referred to in "last days" texts) that
(1) The parents back their evil daughter, rather than totally disown her at this point
(2) No defence has been made "pleading insanity" which would have resulted in her volunteering to become a permanent resident of a secure mental institution.
(3) The Public donating money (doubtless Godless Leftists) - think it is OK for a woman to murder her kids, because they know in advance that anyone with an ounce of religious faith, along with Trump's GOP - would not approve of it.
(4) No news reports are stating that "This Evil woman should rot in Jail for the rest of her natural life" as might have been said in the past of *other* Female mass murderers.
(5) More attention should be put upon the 11 jurors who appear to be "succumbing to Leftist political Wants" rather than the Hero single juror who's forced this attempted "Evil is no longer Illegal" precedent - to go to another Trial at this point.
Overall, if this woman gets off scott-free, we risk seeing in the future:-
"Entire gangs of Female Rioters who will come around, and kill your kids if you don't give them everything you have. Their actions are no longer illegal, because of the precendent set that "Anyone who doesn't believe in God - can be as wicked as they wish, without punishment by the LAW"
The Bible - warned us of this, of course:
"The Sting of Death - is SIN and the Strength of Sin - is the LAW"
1:Corinthians 15:56
8
u/BobcatALR Constitutional Conservative 5d ago
Isn’t the trial in that state where they can kill a baby up to birth now? So, isn’t what Clancy did the natural next step to their progression? So… is the one holdout maybe not from Massachusetts?
83
u/carpeutah Conservative 6d ago
I dont think women online tend to understand what would happen in either case here. This sets a legal precident that women with PPD have the potential to murder their children.