I don't usually watch news; it's not well done these days. Whether because of the profit motive, or because of a subculture of rank laziness, you're not going to find a level of depth and accuracy with respect to what you need to know, or even what you would want to know, from one report. You might even find bias, in all the mediums of news delivery. Even in earlier days, when the physical newspaper was the undisputed king, the pressure to be first and the pressure to sell could distort a perspective. There are people who have made it their life's work to evaluate the news, and to attempt to re-present it--mostly by gathering as many good faith sources as possible--as fairly as possible. That is not me. I rely on much more analytical minds for that.
But I did do a web search on Lindsay Clancy.
You don't need my opinion on this case, and you won't get it. What you will get are a few thoughts about how our legal system is generally designed, and why it's adversarial. I hold a political science degree, and that generally has meant that people like me would crush the social studies portion of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? I do have to look up our federal constitutional amendments at times for precise details, but I can read and understand most Supreme Court opinions--on either side--without screaming in terror whilst my brain melts. Ditto appeals courts and district courts. I thought about law school once, but Bible exams held more appeal than bar exams.
Anyway, a jury of one's peers is an idea, enshrined as a right going back hundreds of years that serves as a counterbalance to the police and the prosecutor. Especially after the widespread move away from absolute monarchy, the rights of individuals came into sharp relief. The legislature(s) passes laws, especially criminal laws, and police and prosecutors enforce the law and punish violators. It's a jury that decides questions of fact, and how a law does or does not apply in a particular situation. The Anglo-American legal system is heavily weighted in theory in favor of the accused, though economic disparities seem to militate against the presumption of innocence and equality before the law.
The idea that a jury can set aside the application of a law, or decide that a person should not have even been accused, is called jury nullification. This is quite controversial, especially depending upon one's perspective. But we would expect to find a certain distance between the number of legally guilty and actually morally culpable, in a system that favors the accused. In other words, it's far better to presume innocence and be wrong on occasion than it would be to presume guilt.
It seems that one juror prevented a unanimous jury in favor of Lindsay Clancy's innocence. A mistrial was declared, and because no verdict was attached, she can be tried again. Presumably a large issue for the next jury, as it surely was for this one, is Clancy's ability to appreciate right and wrong, and thus the extent to which she can be held accountable for killing her children.
Comments