There’s plenty of room for nuance and spirited online discussion with regard to Lindsay Clancy.
I celebrate a healthy debate between any adult defending any position on a spectrum ranging between requiring the immediate death penalty on one side, or on the other, demanding 1 life sentence for each child slain, served in a glass box in the middle of the Sonoran desert. If you have creative and unique ideas that lie between these two extremes I would be curious to hear them. Please comment below!
The media, like Clancy’s attorney, paint her — the child killer — as a victim. They imply she’s the victim of a male juror who wouldn’t budge despite admitting doubt. The idea is that under our system, if you have any reasonable doubt about a person having committed the crime, then you don’t convict them.
But there is no reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. There is no doubt at all that she’s guilty. The killer herself admits she did it. The only doubt is whether she should be let free anyway because a paid medical hack says she should get a free pass, at least this time. This isn’t doubt. This is just lunacy. I am thunderstruck that only one juror thought this might be lunacy.
Our society is doomed. But frankly: If the 11 jurors who bought this crap are representative of typical Americans today, this society does not deserve to live.