this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
1 points (50.6% liked)
Shitposting
133 readers
780 users here now
Stopping all fediverse activities. Good bye.
Absolutely stupid indisriminate bans by mods on various instances make it clear to me lemmy and fediverse does not want content.
if I ever get back to fediverse It would be on my own instance as its clear to me nothing short of that is going to work.
Welcome to !shitposting@lemmy.today - a place for memes, shitposts, absurdity, cursed images, low-effort masterpieces, and whatever other internet garbage makes you laugh.
Post dumb shit. Upvote dumb shit. Don't take dumb shit too seriously.
Rules:
- follow instance rules
- reddit shitposting content expressly allowed in any quantities at any post speed. Please do not report users for posting too fast
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, not at all.
The choices the jury had were:
Prison
Involuntary Psychiatric Ward
And the lone holdout actually wasn’t even advocating for prison, he wanted the death penalty (which isn’t possible in MA).
Given that the lone juror was asking for something impossible, it might stand to reason that he might have been trying to get a mistrial to happen…
So, no, they had 5 choices, one of which was completely not guilty. It was still a trial and the prosecution still had the burden of proof to prove she even did it in the first place. It seems 11 people were ready to vote not guilty entirely and 1 person refused to follow the law after expressing reasonable doubt which caused a mistrial.
They did not have five, technically they had three, none of which were “completely not guilty” as she had already pled guilty and did not dispute that she had committed the acts.
They had guilty of murder, not guilty by reason of insanity, and involuntary manslaughter was added to try and help split the difference at the request of the defense. None of these would have resulted in her being free of consequences as you are implying.
Your characterization of “following the law” being assigned to the juror who you agree with reveals your bias here, and you also seem to be under the impression that the jury had the authority to ignore her guilty plea. You should reconsider the source of your information.