Clancy Update! Massachusetts has unique insanity law, which it looks like this is all coming down to. So the new reporting is that there's one holdout, and the defense is trying to get that one juror removed on the basis of him (or her) not understanding the concept of reasonable doubt. In most states, "reasonable doubt" doesn't come into the calculus for an insanity defense, because its up to the defense to prove with a preponderance of evidence (easier burden to meet than beyond a reasonable doubt) that the person was insane. However, in Massachusetts, the burden to overcome an insanity defense remains on the prosecution. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disorder, or that if they did suffer from one, that they had the substantial capacity to differentiate right from wrong and control their behavior. In fact, in Massachusetts the defense isn't even called "insanity" it's called "lack of criminal responsibility." So what's most likely happening is that one juror is stubbornly saying that the prosecution has met its burden of proof to show that Clancy, while diagnosed with mental illness and prescribed drugs, still knew right from wrong. All the other jurors are now probably saying that the prosecution has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy knew the difference between right and wrong, because she was obviously mentally ill and on medications. So this entire situation is very much turning into female OJ. Basically the jury has been convinced that there is some reasonable doubt about whether Clancy knew right from wrong, while there's probably one guy who, looking at the situation rationally, understands that if there's reasonable doubt about whether Clancy understood right from wrong, then none of the entire 21% of the female population on psych meds, nor the 15% of mothers who are diagnosed with post partum depression, know right and wrong. And voila, 40 million Americans can now suddenly get away with murder. Because according to psychiatry, isn't every single one of them mentally ill, and thus isn't there SOME REASONABLE DOUBT that they know right from wrong? What else does mental illness mean if not this? And thus, quite obviously, there cannot be reasonable doubt in such a case, at least if you want to maintain a functioning society. It simply cannot be that 40 million women now have the right to commit murder. And of course the defense is saying it's not about all the possible women, it's about this woman. But this is simply unreasonable--there is no way for human beings to reasonably extrapolate and evaluate whether there's a chance that one "mentally ill" and medicated woman knows right from wrong while another doesn't. It's a matter of degrees that's too abstract to reasonably evaluate, and that is why there cannot be reasonable doubt. It is unreasonable to have doubt in such a situation. That's what reasonable means. It really is a matter of loyalty to functioning of civilization versus loyalty to the cohesion of society, as I said in my prior post. A case like this basically destroys the system in the name of avoiding harm to a single individual.