-Brutally kills her children
-“jurors struggle to see the evil”
Moral Relativism has become a tool exploited by the evil to continue to commit evil without reproach.
No amount of “think from her perspective ” is going to remove that evil, and those who defend her from the journalists to those on the internet, they share in that evil.
A random sample group of women can’t convict a woman who murder her kids.
The feminism debate is over.
我昨天说了吧
陪审团的女性坚定认为亲手勒死自己三个孩子的女人不是谋杀，陪审团里男性坚定认为是谋杀。讨论了三天无法达成一致。人工法官无法调解陪审团达成一致就是mistrial，那么这个女人既没被定罪也没有证明无罪。
Now you understand why women weren’t allowed to be on juries until the 1960s.
Our forebears weren’t crazy. Modernity is crazy.
If you want to take a FAT red pill, do jury duty.
Do what it takes to get selected so you can observe the process.
Your life will change forever. A “jury of your peers” will hit harder than a third world invasion.
If you’re smart enough to intentionally get through the jury selection process you will likely end up becoming the foreman of the group. Unless you lack aura and charisma.
Through the trial deliberations you will find yourself among the most impressionable and malleable people you’ve ever met. Usually decent people but NPCmaxxed with fluoride stares.
It’s staggering once you realize you could potentially steer the whole jury to a decision.
This is why it’s important for good and competent people to do jury duty and to use their powers (mildly above average IQ) wisely to effect justice in our retarded world.
Let’s be perfectly clear…
If it was the husband who brutally strangled his 3 children one by one, and the jury was 12 men, he would have been found guilty in 60 seconds.
In fact, all 12 men would vote to hang him.
Psychosis or not.
Seems about right. A lot of people have very, very strong opinions on this case, which the algorithm is shoveling at you nonstop. But in reality, the case, the evidence, the law, and the research that was introduced at trial and being used to decide it is very nuanced and complex.
My personal view? I don't know if I would accept her insanity defense or not. That probably doesn't satisfy anyone, but oh well. It's the truth. Some crimes just don't have an easy answer. This is one of them.
I'm sure the jurors tried their best. A lot of the evidence they viewed or listened to was unpleasant and will stay with them forever. I hope that people inclined to harass them keep in mind that they did a difficult service for society.
Okay… am I supposed to believe that the juror selection was rigged? Or am I supposed to believe there are so many people in Massachusetts that are absolute ignoramuses that a fairly chosen bench of jurors could only result in a majority of retards?
