Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
My brother and I got into a discussion the other day, and we disagreed a bit. The Lindsay Clancy trial prompted the conversation. The discussion centered around the claim of "insanity," for lack of a better term, and the allegations that one juror didn't want to follow the judge's instructions, resulting in a mistrial. Though only loosely familiar with the details of the Clancy case, I have some experience with deliberations over this controversial defense.
Some years ago, I was on a jury trial and even served as the foreman. The facts of the case were as follows: an individual stole a police car late one night and drove it around until finally the police found him, began following him, and attempted to pull him over. As soon as the police turned their lights on, he took off, driving at a high rate of speed until he crashed the car in a field. Fortunately for him, nobody was hurt, not even himself.
The two charges against him were for stealing the car and for evading the police.
The defense claimed the "insanity plea." I'm using that term in quotes to mean what you think it means: he admitted to doing it but claimed he was not mentally capable of understanding what he was doing. The judge explained to the jury that under the law, if that claim was made, then the trial changed a bit. No longer was the prosecution attempting to convince the jury that he did it. Instead, the defense worked to convince the judge that there were sufficient grounds to accept the plea. And if the judge was so convinced, then it was up to the jury to decide whether the guy was sane or not when he committed the crimes. Further, the judge let us know that our decision could not be based on our own bias about the plea, nor on the fact that he'd admitted to doing it. What we were to decide was whether the guy was sane or not at the time he committed the crimes.
Now some of the members of the jury flatly said, during deliberation, that they disagreed with the insanity plea. That he did it and he should suffer the consequences. I felt this was doing exactly what the judge said not to do, so I communicated with the judge and asked him how to handle it. Of course, he offered no real advice. "The judge has no further instructions for the jury." In other words: "Get on with it."
I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and I'm still not 100% sure how I feel about it, but I do understand the judge's instructions and the difference between deciding "did he do it" or "was he sane when he did it."
What do you guys think? Should there be an option for an insanity plea? If so, how should juries be instructed, if at all?
Discussion (42)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It’s not a question of if he was crazy…it’s a question of if he was so crazy that he didn’t know right from wrong. The fact that he tried to evade the police demonstrates, to me, that he knew what he did was wrong. Guilty.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Agreed. Lindsay Clancy knew what she was doing was wrong: 1. She got her husband out of the house; 2. She took her children down to the basement out of possible hearing of neighbors; 3. She apparently tried to commit suicide after murdering them.
She knew it was wrong and did everything she could to succeed.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Add to your points the fact that in Mass. the law is reverse of all other states and of reason. A defendant pleading innocence by insanity must be proven sane by the prosecution. Your points do just that.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The thing is that the law is different in each state on the matter. I seem to remember that one state changed from a "not guilty by reason of insanity" option to a "guilty, but insane" option. The latter option means if you get healed of your insanity, then you are released from the hospital to serve your prison sentence.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
In my opinion "insanity" could actually be an aggravating factor instead of an exculpatory one. From an abstract reference at least if a criminal understands what he is doing, then a punishment could be a deterrent in the future. Many have the whole thing upside down.
Intent does matter in certain crimes, but if rehabilitation is part of the consideration of the sentencing, then it is impossible to rehabilitate a person who is irrational and disconnected from reality. At the very least you then need insane asylums, a system that was previously shut down and not thought of as to be reformable.
So in your case obviously you convict him. It's not a hard case at all. He stole a police car and ran and trashed a government vehicle and put the public at risk, duh. Is the default to let him off with a warning?
BTW, the lone hold did not necessarily "disregard" the judge's instructions, that's just the way it's being spun.
You're seeing five of 42 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.