The Philosophy Discussion Forum

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2026 11:06 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2026 8:11 pm However, one juror followed the instructions perfectly. He had a reasonable doubt that the murderer was not in psychosis, that in fact she knew what she was doing and she knew it was bad, knew it was wrong, based on the evidence presented in court rather than based on the jury members (nurses) who were relying on their preconceptions and thus biased.

WTF! Are you telling us that you too have no understanding of "reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. It is NOT bi-directional. A jury is asked to decide if GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. Not INNOCENT beyond a treasonable doubt.

what to know about the 'insanity defense'
https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/01/ma ... -liability

Under Massachusetts law, when someone pleads not guilty by reason of a “lack of criminal responsibility" — the state’s technical term for the insanity defense — the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crimes.

Now you understand what is meant by a stacked deck.

Weren't you even curious enough to check?

Are you too an elicitor?

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 7:07 am
https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/01/ma ... -liability

Under Massachusetts law, when someone pleads not guilty by reason of a “lack of criminal responsibility" — the state’s technical term for the insanity defense — the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crimes.

Now you understand what is meant by a stacked deck.

Weren't you even curious enough to check?

Are you too an elicitor?

What to know about ANY defense. Precisely, it is the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt (not any doubt)

So when the defense is "not criminally responsible" the prosecution needs to prove sane (NOT insane) beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that burden met here? Especially since the prosecution's expert witnesses all expressed doubt? (more likely sane than not is insufficient). The juror in question believed more likely sane BUT expressed had doubts.

The juror is saying, I have (reasonable) doubts that she was sane but I am going to insist on voting to convict because she killed her children. Essentially the juror is saying "I don't recognize "insanity" as a defense".

Do you know the meaning of "elicitor"? What immune response to you imagine I am triggering?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 3:26 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 7:07 am
https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/09/01/ma ... -liability

Under Massachusetts law, when someone pleads not guilty by reason of a “lack of criminal responsibility" — the state’s technical term for the insanity defense — the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crimes.

Now you understand what is meant by a stacked deck.

Weren't you even curious enough to check?

Are you too an elicitor?

What to know about ANY defense. Precisely, it is the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt (not any doubt)

So when the defense is "not criminally responsible" the prosecution needs to prove sane (NOT insane) beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think that burden met here? Especially since the prosecution's expert witnesses all expressed doubt? (more likely sane than not is insufficient). The juror in question believed more likely sane BUT expressed had doubts.

The juror is saying, I have (reasonable) doubts that she was sane but I am going to insist on voting to convict because she killed her children. Essentially the juror is saying "I don't recognize "insanity" as a defense".

Do you know the meaning of "elicitor"? What immune response to you imagine I am triggering?

No, he was saying that he had reasonable doubts that she was insane, that in fact she was sane when she murdered.

That he said this or that in the deliberations does not override what he finally decided, 'specially when the eyewitness jurors to what he said and thought are disagreeable harridans.

It's well recognized that the burden upon the prosecution to prove sanity of the defendant in Mass., rather than the burden to prove insanity of the defendant, is a bit of a logic twister, since she performed what many would preconceive to be a crazy act.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 3:26 pm Do you know the meaning of "elicitor"? What immune response to you imagine I am triggering?

An elicitor is one who elicits.
To elicit is to invite a ration of appropriate participation that might budge a wont.

To the eleven, this link illustrates tyranny of the individual.
Thanks to the media and disgruntled jurors, the same link illustrates martyrdom.
https://patriotpost.us/memes/1000870-stand-firm

Apparently you aim to trigger.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2026 5:29 pm Apparently you aim to trigger.

Can I have a clear statement from you.

a) IF the juror had doubts about whether sane or not how was the juror supposed to decide IF basing on the rule "if reasonable doubt about guilt supposed to acquit".

b) Since the juror refused to acquit, which do you think was the case? No reasonable doubt she was sane or disagreed with that rule. (although did swear to apply it)

c) As I said probably ALL THE JURORS had doubts about whether she was sane or not. What the relevance of that since the rule is one-sided. You might want to compare with/discuss the Scottish rules whereby there are THREE possible verdicts, innocent, not proven, or guilty. Might I suggest that a Scottish jury faced with this case almost certainly returned "not proven".

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 5:21 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2026 5:29 pm Apparently you aim to trigger.

Can I have a clear statement from you.

Sure. The lone juror believed that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murderer was sane during the murder. Apparently this is enough to hang the jury, because that is what happened.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 7:48 pm Can I have a clear statement from you.

Sure. The lone juror believed that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murderer was sane during the murder. Apparently this is enough to hang the jury, because that is what happened.
[/quote]

But that is contrary to (reported) fact. Supposedly that juror DID say had reasonable doubts about sanity.

I have now seen reported exactly what that juror was arguing, that she PLANNED what she did, that she KNEW what she did.

I cannot decide between two possibilities, both related to that juror's understanding of insanity and insanity as a legal defense.

A) Possibly not understanding what to expect of psychotic persons, never experienced interacting with any. In other words, never met anybody clearly insane but able to plan and carry OUT actions, even actions rational IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR INSANITY.

B) Not actually accepting insanity as legal defense. There were times in our legal history where insanity as a defense didn't men just being insane but so disfunctional as to not even know WHAT they were doing.

"A" would not be a problem except it was reported that the juror did doubt her sanity. So I think more of "B" in the mix. The juror (strongly) felt that only insanity so disabling that person didn't know WHAT they were doing (as opposed to the WHY being totally off the wall).