A juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy is sharing new details about what he said happened inside the jury room that led to a mistrial in the case of the Massachusetts woman facing first-degree murder charges for the 2023 deaths of her three young children.

Nick Dargie, one of the three men on the 12-person jury, told ABC News' Aaron Katersky that the lone holdout juror who prevented a unanimous verdict did not show any evidence explaining his vote.

"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie, 25, said in an interview Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Insanity isn't a get out of jail free card, she's going to be institutionalized for a long time, maybe even her whole life. It can be a fate worse than jail, but at least she has the proper medical attention needed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

    My problem isn’t with the punishment. From an ethics perspective, the framing of insanity as having any normative relevance is simply incorrect.

    The relevant facts are causal and intentional.

    But then again, the average person has the ethics of a baboon, so this is academic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    The US justice system is explicitly punitive and not habilitative. That is why questions of "insanity" as it relates to culpability are critically important, for better or (largely) worse. This means that the outcome kf the process is not victim or even a perpetrator oriented--it is intended to provide the general shitass public with adequate feelings of cathartic vindication. Whether a perpetrator is deemed "sane" or not factors into that heavily.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment