Tag: courts

By on

First, I think the strong positions people are taking before all the facts are know is interesting. The whole point of an investigation is to uncover the facts and come to a conclusion about how best to resolve the manner. This isn’t happening. People are already taking positions based on the accusations made. I am assuming I don’t have all the facts, to take a position is premature.

The woman in the case feels wronged and she has a burden to prove her case. What facts we do have reveal a messy situation. Drugs, alcohol and sex. But this is precisely why a court should intervene. It is messy.

Something happened though and it is worth investigating.

What I find irritating is the tears shed for the men involved. Miranda Devine, in the New York Post, writes: “The young men made bad choices, too, and I would be ashamed to have sons who behaved that way. But they were just as young and just as out of it as she was and don’t deserve to have their lives ruined if the evidence shows they committed no crime. As far as ruining the young men’s lives involved, though, I don’t know what to say.”

If a woman has to be cautious about how she behaves at a Frat Party, then the same applies for the men. Men need to be aware that women may object to these maneuvers to get them into bed and, because times have changed, these grievances may end up in court. This is where we are with the Cornell case.

I would also argue that these are questions worth pursuing and the courts are best place for their resolution.

Why did these men offer an already drunk woman even more intoxicating substances if not to make her more pliable to their sexual advances? By making her even more incapacitated, they were making the woman even less capable of making a reasonable decision. She wasn’t asking for more drugs and drinks, so why were the encouraging her to get even more inebriated? This seems like a line of inquiry worth pursuing.

But men have been doing this for thousands of years, it is all part of the seduction process — a woman has to be aware when given alcohol or drugs. This is hardly a defense of the young men. Making a person so inebriated they will do anything you want, doesn’t sound like a benign seduction maneuver here. They should have to explain their intentions here.

Then there is the message from one of the men to the rest of his fraternity to come join him for free pussy. Two questions here. Did the woman ask him to offer her up for sexual use? If not, why did he think she was offering it up? Again, this doesn’t seem like some benign action from a nice guy. It sounds very much like he was offering her up to be sexually used by the rest of the fraternity without her consultation.

But she put herself in that position. She did.

And the young men put themselves in the position of wanting sex so badly that they behaved badly in order to pursue this end. They now find themselves in a court of law to straighten out the mess they participated in making. Given the numerous ambiguities of the case, there is a good chance that most of them will get off scot-free.

Of course, their parents and friends have learned about their capacity for bad behavior but then, let’s face it, their behavior was bad. Is it really so wrong to learn this? Discovery is the risk a person takes when they do the wrong thing. If their lives are ruined, which I doubt very much in this case, they participated in causing the ruin.

By on

Lindsay Clancy killed her children during a postpartum psychosis breakdown. She then tried to kill herself by jumping out a window which only paralyzed her from the waist down. This is horrible. A nightmare really.

For some reason, people are arguing about it. Some say she should be found non-guilty by reason of insanity; others saying she deserves prison or worse. The vehemence is puzzling. Clancy was in a troubling state prior to killing her children. She also did strangle them. What does justice look like here? Should she suffer in a prison for the rest of her life or should she be free to suffer a free woman in her own home.

The guilty crowd bother me because they are focused on punishing Clancy which seems pointless. Her children are dead. She is paralyzed. Her marriage is over. Everybody in the world knows she is a child killer. Her life is ruined. I guess putting her in prison would make her life just a little bit more miserable. So there is that but all and all any further punishment seems like a waste of time.

The not guilty crowd are focused on the madness of a mother who should have been helped before breaking down and killing her children. Sympathy for a woman suffering under such duress is understandable but it doesn’t change the woman’s actions. Murderers get stiff penalties for their actions. So why not Clancy?

The argument that this could be any woman in postpartum depression is a bit of an overreach. Very few women actually murder their children while in postpartum depression. Clancy is an aberration. So, while postpartum depression affects many woman, it rarely results in the mother killing her children.

On the other hand, not guilty by reason of insanity is, understandably, a difficult sentence to accept. The killer still did the killing. The victims are still dead. She should have to pay for what she did. And, if not Clancy herself someone should? But who? Clancy’s husband? Mental Health Professionals?

The problem is the need to pin the crime on someone. If this person had only done what they were supposed to do, these horrible killings wouldn’t have happened. Some rational behavior on someone’s part would have saved those children. If only that were true.

This need for justice to put the world back into rational order is impossible here. I believe Clancy was a deeply troubled woman who broke down and killed her children. There is absolutely nothing we can do to make sense of her actions or bring justice for her children.

I can live with her going to prison or remaining a free woman. Either way, we left with a difficult problem. Dangerous crazy people. How do we stop them before they act and we are doing absolutely nothing to help the insane or protect their innocent victims. Nothing except waiting for it to happen.