Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
-
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
He's allowed to hold his position for any reason at all, including he doesn't agree with a defense of insanity--if that's what it was. Likely during jury selection they were asked if they held that bias, and possibly he didn't know, or possibly he lied. But, that's all part of our system. It's imperfect as every such system is.
He claims he tried to explain his reasoning but the rest wouldn't listen. That may be the failure point. If they had listened, maybe they could have persuaded him. Or, maybe they did listen at first and rejected his arguments, then wouldn't listen anymore.
We'll never know what happened in the deliberation room, but the system worked as it should. Having sat on two juries in the past, I have some faith in juries to come to a good decision. In this case, the jury failed in a way that can be accommodated. That is, it was a mistrial, so there'll be another trial.
Not if he had reasonable doubt.
"Admitting" that in deliberation is not binding in any way.
The only "gotcha" they can pull out is to get him to agree with the verdict. He clearly didn't and did his job admirably.
He did what he thought was right despite immense pressure to just go with the flow.
No, if he had any doubt at all then he should have voted with the rest of the jurors. That's how the law works. A jury is not a place to take a personal stand on a case.
On top of that, this juror lied about his criminal past in order to be selected for the jury. He should have been disqualified from the get go.
He had no doubt she intentionally planned and strangled her three kids and was aware of what she was doing.
He may have doubted other things, but those didn't matter to him as much as that simple fact.
I trust the other jurors account of him admitting he had reasonable doubt over his retelling since he lied about his criminal history in order to get on the jury. It's even more damning to know that his criminal history includes domestic violence against his partner.
Good for you. I guess if you were on the jury you could have made your own choice.
This isn't even an allegation of bribery or coercion or corruption. It's just you not liking his decision as a juror doing exactly what a juror is supposed to do.
You're misunderstanding how a jury works and how the law works.
Oh, so she was acquitted?
Thanks for continuing to show your misunderstanding of this entire case and trial.
Have they arrested the juror yet for making the decision you don't like?
Your ignorance is astounding.
There are different threshold of doubt that are allowed in various jurisdictions for various trials. Two terms are "beyond a reasonable boubt" and "the preponderance of evidence". The first accepts that you may still have doubts, having not seen the act with your own eyes and the fallibility of witnesses, the other that the balance tips in one direction or other. I don't know of any legal systems that require no doubt at all in the verdict.
All that said, I'd say that jury nullification indicates that the jury is absolutely the right place to take a personal stand, regardless of what the law says. If you have the right to hear all the evidence to indicate that an unjust law was broken, you should still be able to say, "Not guilty." You do in fact have that right in many places, including America. The fact lawyers try their best take sure it doesn't happen doesn't mean it's illegal. Note that unless everyone agrees, this will also result in a hung jury and a mistrial.
We're not talking about various trials here, we're talking about one trial.
Then you should use the correct terms, or the terms relevant to this case and this topic. The fact of the matter is, the same legal standards that allow the striking down of an unjust law via jury nullification are the same ones that allow the abuse or rejection of a just law, which seems highly relevant to this particular case.
Jury nullification
Yes and that's why it was a mistrial.
This you?
Yes, I think that since he had stated reasonable doubt, he should have honored that and voted with the rest of the jurors.
Acknowledging he had the right to vote the way he did does not mean his decision is immune from criticism.
It's great that you have that opinion, and that is absolutely your right, however, that is not how the jury system works in America or many other countries, for what I and the designers of the system believe are very good reasons. One reason would be for not convicting people for breaking unjust laws, such as the Fugitive Slave Act. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm having a conversation on a forum about the case. I'm not making any legal decisions that affect this case arguing with people online who want to strip women of their rights because Lyndsey Clancy killed her kids.
I'm not the only one who believes this juror had ulterior motives for the way he voted and that he ignored the law telling him that if he had reasonable doubt he shouldn't vote guilty.
And I don't disagree with any of that, and unless she is unfortunate enough to have two people like that slip through her lawyer's vetting process, it will have no long-term repercussions for her or society in general. On the other hand, having penalties for the decisions jurors make could be very far-reaching, quite possibly as far-reaching as stripping women of their rights.
I've never posited that jurors should have penalties for the decisions they make just because I disagree with a juror's decision. To be clear.
Anyone working to strip women of their rights based on this one case is doing so nefariously. This isn't a novel case, this isn't the first postpartum psychosis incident.
It's not Lindsey Clancy's fault if bad actors use her case to attack all women.
Well, then I guess we agree that at the very least this guy whose name I can't be bothered to remember or even look up is probably a shitty person and should be treated with disgust by everyone who meets him (probably the best reason to learn his name), and that if it didn't happen in this case another would have come along that the people trying to remove rights could use as a foil to their means.
That suggests to me that focusing on this loser, or the choice he made that was entirely in his right, will be nothing more than a red herring and it would be better to focus on this case being used as an excuse to remove women's rights.
Yep, that's why I've posted about that very thing myself.
I also think that it is worthy to publicly push back on some of these sexist opinions that are rising from people conflating Lindsey Clancy with all women as if we are a monolith.
Absolutely fair. Hell, even Lemmy users are a pretty small, self-selected bunch and we aren't a monolith.
Hey thanks for having a back and forth with me that didn't devolve into name calling or personal digs. That was nice :)
Well, I'm a real, multi-faceted person, and I have my bad days, but I try to call out behavior and statements and avoid insults. Sometimes it's easier, and this was certainly one of them. Maybe we can argue/discuss again in the future. :D
I'd like that :)
What rights are at stake here? Women’s right to kill their toddlers?
The only person who can determine if he had any doubt is him. The only person who can determine if his doubt is reasonable is also him. The decision of a juror is not subject to anyone else's opinion.