Mass Bill H.1924 Raises serious questions about the Clancy case

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanTravis62
  • Start date Start date
DanTravis62

DanTravis62

Moderator
Moderator


This is incredible. After this case happened, the language of the original bill was changed substantially to include criminal sentencing. Amazing.

This case is amazing because it basically is as pure a litmus test as there ever has been for someone who is completely morally reprehensible and brainwashed - but the legal wrangling in the mass house of representatives is something much darker.

Now women are legally going to be protected from the consequences of their own actions?! This is absolutely crazy, man.
 
No worries brudda; it's laughably-trivial.

Just cleaned the root level up. Seems it went to the dogs in my absence but that's perfectly-understandable when one considers the fact that I've checked it every day since becoming a mod, the recent hiatus excepted of course.

The price one pays for being an OCD Virgo. You do stuff that matters to you that nobody gives a shit about. :LOL:
 
Pure insanity. This is basically an attempt for establishing permanent victimhood status for women, at least mothers. It’s always someone’s or something else’s fault, right? What’s next, adding a generational provision to this bill so Grandmas who commit such crimes now are protected from legal persecution because of the “psychosis” they experienced 50 years ago?
 
thegame said:
Pure insanity. This is basically an attempt for establishing permanent victimhood status for women, at least mothers. It’s always someone’s or something else’s fault, right? What’s next, adding a generational provision to this bill so Grandmas who commit such crimes now are protected from legal persecution because of the “psychosis” they experienced 50 years ago?
Click to expand...

I mean, the silver lining is that it's just Massachusetts

But even then, that's absolutely fucking horrific that this is being put into law ANYWHERE; let alone the fucking united states/western world

The crazy part is these state representatives in Massachusetts knew this was coming, and they knew this would be a huge deal, and they did this with intentionality. It's so fucking dark and dystopian - at what point do women's rights end??? Is it ever enough privileges over men?

There was a case really similar to this near me, Travis Decker, who brutally murdered his children by strangulation - he was a combat veteran, with severe, severe PTSD. I'm trying to imagine how this is different in any way except LC's suicide attempt failed?
 
Monkey Man said:
100% brother.

Every murder involves a state of mental illness or at least temporary insanity.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that’s not what I meant at all. I meant this proposed amendment to the law is insane. I don’t believe trained police officiers who are forced to take out the bad guys in the line of duty,especially to save others in an hostage situation for example, are insane at all.
 
Monkey Man said:
100% brother.

Every murder involves a state of mental illness or at least temporary insanity.
Click to expand...

Every rational person could agree that Ted Bundy was insane, but few people claimed he should not face ultimate level punishment for it.

This Harpy cannot escape justice either. There have already been at least a couple of likely copycats that I've heard of. I'm at a loss..... :dunno:
 
DanTravis62 said:
Now women are legally going to be protected from the consequences of their own actions?! This is absolutely crazy, man.
Click to expand...
Dan, I think this is not completely directly the case, if I read the bill right.
What I see, what is being proposed, is two-fold:
1) treatment prioritization. This could both be helpful, as probably originally intended, OR... this could be weaponized by shrewd (or plain scumbaggy) lawyers, to basically create a mitigating factor.
2) that the bill states that a documented perinatal psychiatric complication shall be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Now, #2 could indeed mean that 'hey, we'll do the treatment...and wouldn't you know, yowza, there's a psychosis found! Ain't that convenient? Well ma'am, even though you had a friggin' killing spree within 12 months of birthing, that normally would provide a one-way ticket to death row OR life without parole, we is gonna git ya the next best thing to a get-out-of-jail-free-card... And shazam! You are eligible for parole again!'

And yes, while this is a horrific scenario, nowhere do I find supporting text that it completely cuts away ANY jail time.
Also, both a judge and jury *can* take this in account, but are not obliged to.
It explicitly gives the court the legal permission to consider the severe impact of postpartum psychosis when determining whether life without parole is an appropriate sentence. To consider, not forcing to...
Meaning that if both judge and jury are not complete brainwashed, activist fuckwits, and all people on that jury have a regular hair color :p, then nothing really changes for the sentencing in a practical sense, right?

So, I wouldn't say that women would be completely legally protected from consequences of their own actions, but yes, this bill does create some nasty possible loophole that could be abused for sure.

And the fact that language like 'birthing person' is used, is even more... :bleh::loco:
 
70 Mach 1 said:
There's another who just hung her 2yo son in IL.
Pleading similar over med defense

But this MA woman looks physco
Who'd put their dick in that
Click to expand...

What kind of MONSTER can actually go through with that? Putting the rope around your own child's neck...and FOR WHAT??!!

They are unfit to be free. Or breathing.

PUNISHMENT is due for crimes. Not excuses.
 
Uzi Nein Millimetah said:
What kind of MONSTER can actually go through with that? Putting the rope around your own child's neck...and FOR WHAT??!!

They are unfit to be free. Or breathing.

PUNISHMENT is due for crimes. Not excuses.
Click to expand...
This Hits me very hard
My daughter is adopted
They make it so fucking hard and long expensive processes to adopt

I bless that mother every day

Theres safe haven for new borns
No questions asked.

Anything older you call CPS and they will provide foster care and arrange for adoption

But they make it so difficult that can take forever if it ever happens

At 18 they can turn the kid loose in the streets. Then the shit really goes wrong for them

The system is very fucked up.

Theres so many couples looking to adopt and they make it impossible

Theres no reason to kill a child.
Theres outs for giving up your rights

What do you think @JackBootedThug
 
Last edited:
Speeddemon said:
Dan, I think this is not completely directly the case, if I read the bill right.
What I see, what is being proposed, is two-fold:
1) treatment prioritization. This could both be helpful, as probably originally intended, OR... this could be weaponized by shrewd (or plain scumbaggy) lawyers, to basically create a mitigating factor.
2) that the bill states that a documented perinatal psychiatric complication shall be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Now, #2 could indeed mean that 'hey, we'll do the treatment...and wouldn't you know, yowza, there's a psychosis found! Ain't that convenient? Well ma'am, even though you had a friggin' killing spree within 12 months of birthing, that normally would provide a one-way ticket to death row OR life without parole, we is gonna git ya the next best thing to a get-out-of-jail-free-card... And shazam! You are eligible for parole again!'

And yes, while this is a horrific scenario, nowhere do I find supporting text that it completely cuts away ANY jail time.
Also, both a judge and jury *can* take this in account, but are not obliged to.
It explicitly gives the court the legal permission to consider the severe impact of postpartum psychosis when determining whether life without parole is an appropriate sentence. To consider, not forcing to...
Meaning that if both judge and jury are not complete brainwashed, activist fuckwits, and all people on that jury have a regular hair color :p, then nothing really changes for the sentencing in a practical sense, right?

So, I wouldn't say that women would be completely legally protected from consequences of their own actions, but yes, this bill does create some nasty possible loophole that could be abused for sure.

And the fact that language like 'birthing person' is used, is even more... :bleh::loco:
Click to expand...

Dude, that entire paragraph is basically "yeah we found dismembered body parts in his fridge, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he dismembered or killed anyone" 😂

Yeah no shit it isn't "direct" or necessarily

It literally doesn't need to be because everyone knows how this actually is going to be used just through common sense
 
DanTravis62 said:
Dude, that entire paragraph is basically "yeah we found dismembered body parts in his fridge, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he dismembered or killed anyone" 😂

Yeah no shit it isn't "direct" or necessarily

It literally doesn't need to be because everyone knows how this actually is going to be used just through common sense
Click to expand...
No, it really looks like you're focusing on the wrong, or a different aspect of it.
Mitigating circumstances doesn't say "oh he didn't do it".
To use your example: "Yes we found dismembered body parts in his fridge, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he dismembered or killed anyone in cold methodic calculation. We have evidence he did do the killing. But... his temporary lapse of reason should count for a mitigating circumstance, so while he still should be jailed for 20-some years, it may not directly need to life-without-parole or death row'. Capiche?

Basically, where men can have mitigating circumstances like psychotic breakdown, emotional distress, etc., they're trying to create some extra options for women. And my guess is that this opens the door to loopholes/abuse.
 
Speeddemon said:
No, it really looks like you're focusing on the wrong, or a different aspect of it.
Mitigating circumstances doesn't say "oh he didn't do it".
To use your example: "Yes we found dismembered body parts in his fridge, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he dismembered or killed anyone in cold methodic calculation. We have evidence he did do the killing. But... his temporary lapse of reason should count for a mitigating circumstance, so while he still should be jailed for 20-some years, it may not directly need to life-without-parole or death row'. Capiche?

Basically, where men can have mitigating circumstances like psychotic breakdown, emotional distress, etc., they're trying to create some extra options for women. And my guess is that this opens the door to loopholes/abuse.
Click to expand...


No, they smashed this law through because of the Clancy case, and everyone knows EXACTLY how it's going to be used.
 
Well, to be honest, I see no legal text in that bill that clearly states 'because of postpartum depression, any criminal offence done within 12 months after giving birth will be completely wiped away for a 'birthing person', no jail-time necessary whatsoever.'

Look, just like you, I'm appalled why they would even come up with this bill and yes, the Clancy case was referenced, even though that lying sack of shit Senator was claiming the opposite on that call, but let's not have outrage cloud our judgment of what is actually proposed.

If I'm mistaken, please point out the actual wording where it suggests 'women can get away with murder, no jailtime AT ALL.' Because I sure as hell can't find it.
 
Speeddemon said:
Well, to be honest, I see no legal text in that bill that clearly states 'because of postpartum depression, any criminal offence done within 12 months after giving birth will be completely wiped away for a 'birthing person', no jail-time necessary whatsoever.'

Look, just like you, I'm appalled why they would even come up with this bill and yes, the Clancy case was referenced, even though that lying sack of shit Senator was claiming the opposite on that call, but let's not have outrage cloud our judgment of what is actually proposed.

If I'm mistaken, please point out the actual wording where it suggests 'women can get away with murder, no jailtime AT ALL.' Because I sure as hell can't find it.
Click to expand...

Lindsay Clancy is already getting away with triple murder with no jail by using this exact excuse. Even with no fucking diagnosis.

Codifying it just makes it official. You are letting your autism get in the way of your common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top