Would the jury have convicted Lindsay Clancy of First Degree Murder if she had methodically killed anybody else's three children? I suspect that there is a 99.9% chance that the jury would have turned in a unanimous "Guilty" verdict for Murder in the First Degree after 10 minutes of deliberation if she had killed her next-door neighbor's kids (for instance) and no other circumstance had been changed.
Why is viciously killing her own children not murder? Weren't they unlawfully deprived of their futures? Why is she held to a much lower standard for caring for her own children than for the children of random strangers?
The law is not based on Empathy. It is based on facts that can be generated.
It does seems inverted - personally I feel much more responsible for my own children's welfare than that of the neighbor's or even stranger's (which come in around third after my Mrs., of course.)
ReplyDeleteHistory has many examples of incidents of filicide... what's different now is the widespread support this killer has been receiving. Indicative of a deeply disturbed and dysfunctional society.
ReplyDeleteBear in mind, the choice wasn't between "Guilty" and "Innocent", it was a choice between "Guilty" and "Insane".
ReplyDeleteA verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" wouldn't have sent her home (not immediately, maybe not ever), but to a mental hospital instead of a regular prison.