Being the continuation of InstaPunk and InstaPunk Rules
The Rest of the Story About the Clancy Trial…?
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
I won’t kid you. I’m exactly where Nancy Mace is on this case. Even Cluck and Buck were better at providing an appropriate legal context for the farce just played out in Massachusetts. Drug and alcohol intoxication are not legal defenses in murder trials. Combat veterans suffering from documented hallucinogenic episodes of PTSD have also been convicted of murder and given harsh punishments. The PTSD diagnosis does not suffice for an insanity defense. It is sometimes admitted after the verdict as a possible mitigating factor in sentencing. In legal terms sanity is knowing the difference between right and wrong. Lindsey Clancy has no basis for claiming that she forgot it is wrong to murder three helpless children in your care.
The cultural debate has been focused on the supposed uniqueness of female “feelings.” Which men cannot understand. Which is a crock. I understand the why’s wherefore’s of people wanting a Get Out of Jail Free card just for being a “woman.” (To save time, I will stipulate that a “woman” is denied as anyone who can’t throw a baseball or navigate life without a purse. If some of those can’t get pregnant, who cares?) Here’s the card they already have despite the SCOTUS decision that inspired assassination attempts:
Now they want to extend the immunity to the age of five, at a minimum. Legal eagles from the Wiccan province of New England now assert that no guilty verdict for murder is possible in the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
All this is the given. The avalanche of civilizational collapse precipitated by dumbass feminism is now in the catastrophe phase. I’ll let everyone else move the deck chairs around on the sinking ship if it will make them feel more righteous.
I’m more concerned about some rather ominous collateral damage outside the “women brought you into this world and can take you out of it” article of Superior Sex orthodoxy. Because I seem to be the only one who’s curious about the prosecutors in this case. The jury consisted of nine women and three men. This happens. Not objecting to that.what I’m concerned about is why these prosecutors tolerated a jury containing nine women.
Do you know who they are, these prosecutors? Here they are:
The lead prosecuting attorney was Jennifer Sprague, who got her JD from the New England College of Law, which is only the second lowest rated law school in Massachusetts (#168 of 194 U.S law schools) according to USNWR. Never mind. Takes all kinds, right?
They’re picking a jury that will have to choose from among these verdicts offered up by the Commonwealth:
Look hard at that last one. If you were a prosecutor intent on a First Degree Murder Conviction, wouldn’t you do your darndest not to offer any jury an out called ‘Manslaughter resulting from diminished Capacity’?
Moreover, wouldn’t have made your prime objective in jury selection a panel consisting of six men and six women? Two reasons there? First, to eliminate any speculation that sexism pro or con played any role in the verdict agreed upon? Second and more importantly, what might you expect as a prosecutor in a high profile case with five different verdict option but some kind of compromise under the pressures of publicity and foot-tapping by the judge. If men predominate in deliberations, deliberations are likely to be contentious and focused on debatable pieces of evidence about, say, premeditation and cleanup after the fact. If women predominate in deliberations, the feelings of individual jurors become the ruling decision factors, because the best outcomes come from cooperation and consensus, not confrontation and the conquest of logic.
My appraisal is that these prosecutors were actually aiming at the last of the proffered verdict options. If they hadn’t read the room during the jury empaneling process, they had read the newspapers beforehand. And, critically, they did not seek to sequester the jury. All of the inflammatory press coverage and responses of family and friends outside of courthouse hours were permitted to acquaint the jurors with the public furor about the case.
My concern about collateral damage? Nobody is demanding an investigation of the prosecutors. The mistrial we got was a put-up job, the worst of the favorable outcomes the District Attorney’s office was aiming for. Why the lone holdout has to be crucified in lublic. But it is still a favorable outcome in their eyes. This precedent has made the cases of child killer women into the legal counterpart of rape trials: a mess of he said/she said ugliness that hardly ever results in justice for the victims. Which, depending on how cynical a feminist you are, might be the very tit-for-tat trendsetter you could have hoped for. Killing the little bastards without going to prison for it has become a realistic option in the land where loving motherhood used to be the Number One ideal of a good society.
How many other crimes will come to be included in future expansions of the female License to Kill?
“I’m the one with no soul.” In case you never listened to the lyrics before…
Conflicted identity and media image woes By now we know if you’re a Democrat, getting elected isn’t about who you are, what you’ve done or haven’t done. It’s about how people see you. The factors that can do in a candidate are often more subtle than the pundits of the professional wrestling circuit called the mainstream media. Why we think it’s time to help the world’s most uninformed voters about who to elect as their next nominee for President. We’re not going to get all racist and sexist about it. The decision points we’ve discovered are all based on the individuals involved, not the immaterial fluff like experience or political philosophies. We’ll start right at the top and give you one simple thing to bear in mind before you try to pick a winner for 2028. Kamala Harris Not about the word salads or the escort thing. Too Desperate. Gavin Newsom Too Lyle Waggoner. Times change. Bernie Sanders Too ‘Little Big Man’ AOC Too prematurely passé Gretchen Whitmer Too Lily-White J...
Did the District Attorney of Philadelphia propose blowing up Trump’s White House Ballroom and auctioning off pieces of the rubble to cut the deficit? The Answer Provided by Google’s AI Assistant: Yes . Our topic today is Larry Krasner and his record as the District Attorney of Philadelphia and apparent higher political aspirations. Our purpose, though, is not purely political. It is to provide a demonstration of how Artificial Intelligence applications can be used in personal research that goes deeper than the media ever do. It is also to show the pitfalls of relying on such applications without a dogged determination to be thorough. The programmers behind the computer “intelligence” are always there, and they are just as human and political as, well, the elitist geeks who write the code. There are always two big questions to answer before undertaking what will be a long and complicated post on a complicated topic. First, Can I do it? And second, Do I really want to do it? This t...
Mad Max as you’re supposed to want her Having finished my Mad Max post yesterday, I realized I had confined my discussion of the ‘Instant Gratification’ problem to the MAGA fainthearts. Their inability to look far enough forward to envision consequences is far less than that of the whole half country full of Democrat apologists and Trump haters. Shouldn’t I address that fact in some comparable terms to what I just wrote? I guess so. The easy answer is referencing the two recent Mad Max sequels provided to us by Woke Hollywood. But I haven’t seen them. I had no interest in paying to see them in a theater. At one point I did put one of them, Furiosa I think, on my IMDB watch list. I received a notification that it would be briefly available on one of the streaming services and I did tune in to watch. Lost interest about 15 minutes in, by which time the old rules had it a good movie should have you hooked. I was not hooked. It was just the same cinematic backdrop as the Road W...
This is what I call an omnibus post. That is, it will contain many links to what I have published here and elsewhere previously. Not going to apologize for that. I don’t mind asking you to read a variety of approaches to the same gigantic topic. It’s a topic so big we’ve all become accustomed (or trained ourselves) to deal with it only in pieces. But the pieces are all part of a larger whole that has grave consequences for the culture as a whole. A great many people aren’t going to like what I have to say here, but it’s time it was said. I won’t be mincing words. If you feel like contending with specific points I am making, you’re well advised to read what’s at the links before you cut yourself the easy break of dismissing this post as irrational or wrongheaded or over-generalized. It isn’t. It just won’t be popular. A word about the word ‘general’ as it used in vernacular expressions like ”in general” or “generally speaking.” We all do generalize, mostly without acknowledging that whe...
AI is independently objective? Not politically biased? Not a powerful hidden censor? Guess again. This post isn’t about AI. But AI is now part of an increasingly ominous context in which the fate of western civilization is being played as both low comedy and high tragedy. I use an AI app as a satirical tool. It enables you to make still photos of faces say things from a long list of snappy quotes and music clips. A lot of the quotes are themselves satirical, with voices altered from the original speaker or singer, to make them funny in some other mouth. But they don’t like it when you use their little app to make certain sacred cows look stupid or dishonest. Any Every time the name Trump appears in a headline over a photo featuring one of his thousands of enemies, the Revive app is certain to flag your work in process as NSFW, as in not safe for work in the politically correct Progressive media environment. You’re not allowed. If you try to appease by moderating headlines o...
RAV’s Frank Gaffney discussing existential crisis of AI with statecraft guru Sam Faddish. What could go wrong? This, for one thing: He has his own gaggle of Chicken Little AI experts. And, inevitably, this: Me, when I’m not hiding my true self behind a photograph They’re all worried about AI. Terrified in fact. For different reasons. Bannon has some apocalyptic seer who’s worried about meta-humans replacing Homo sapiens. Gaffney and Faddis are fixated on the latest AI hot topic, “The Singularity,” that magic moment when a supercomputer becomes self aware and decides to exterminate mankind. How did we get here? The usual way. The movies. First, there was HAL: Then, just a quarter century later, after a decades-long detour through a dead-end time paradox called The Terminator , there came the monstrous harpy HAL, a transgendered terminator in a box, like we’d been brought up to believe in, including Gaffney and Faddis: Worried yet? Here’s her resumé and mission statement. C...
Happy Independence Day No. 250! I’m planning to do my part for the year-long celebration of the still remarkable birth of the United States of America. Just starting to realize that the number of us who remember the last big anniversary in 1976 is getting smaller every day. Why I have some special ideas about focusing on the moment of transition, that is the tick of the clock last night when the 249th year became the 250th. A kind of time capsule that may be buried now but dug up later to see who were way back when you were still as young as you think you are now. My credentials for the job. Quite a few actually, but the most important one today is that I was a working participant in the official Bicentennial celebrations back when I was still young. I wrote a post about it almost 10 years ago, ancient history in today’s 24/7 chronometer dial. In honor of the ones no longer with us from that time, I dug up the old post from the Wayback Machine and put it back together here a...
…and a weird dose of nostalgia, as for something half remembered. What did you do for your Memorial Day remembrances? We watched the laying of the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and the President’s speech. The audience was large, and the people there looked amazingly normal. Attentive and respectful. The way our parents taught us to be at solemn events. We heard the fireworks begin after dark and put the Thundershirt on our terrier Tommy, who isn’t entirely sure that fireworks aren’t an approaching thunderstorm. All we needed of that timeless ritual, since we’ve both been to many such occasions, including the field a mile away where the Salem event is always held. It was only at bedtime that I tried something new. In my constant search for background sounds that facilitate the hours of sleep I get before the inevitable wee hours summons to the keyboard, I try different things, usually intended to be monotonous and therefore soporific. British crime documentary series are...
Comments